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.

Warhammer 40K is a tabletop wargame. The basic concept behind the game is that 2 opponents use their respective codex/allied codex to construct a fighting force. The purpose of a codex is to give point values to the units used on the tabletop. A unit’s cost should be a reflection of that unit’s durability, speed, offense, and special rules/abilities that ultimately contribute to winning the game. The agreement is that each player is allowed to bring the same number of points in an attempt to set up a battle in which both sides have equal resources. It is my opinion that Formations break this very basic agreement between players for several reasons:

Formations offer additional benefits/ rules with no change in points cost. Formations add new rules, open up access to more force org. slots, and can be easily shoe horned into armies without going through the usual ally restrictions. These are all things that benefit the player choosing to use a formation. If you (the player using a formation) are getting more benefits, you should be paying additional points for the units. A good example is the much hated Tau Firebase formation. For the exact same points cost as an equivalent group of units from Codex Tau Empire, this formation grants Tank Hunter, Monster Hunter and Proffered Enemy (Space Marines). This is supposedly off set by the fact that Space Marine units gain Hatred against them but anyone who has played 40k will tell you that if not a fair trade. This “downside” either does not apply because you’re not playing SM’s or you want to get swept any way so other units can shoot the SM’s. Against all other armies, this formation is gaining special rules AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. This breaks the social contract between players as by buying the formation all of a sudden the player gains access to more powerful units for the same cost. It is the definition of paying to win because you are buying better units for the same in-game points cost.

Formations and Dataslates are not equally distributed among the codicies. In a manor similar to Forgeworld IA books, these digital products target certain armies while leaving others out in the cold. How many underpowered codicies have gotten Formations and Dataslates to help bring them up to speed, very few? Some would point to the Nid and CSM Formations and Dataslates. I will grant that these do help these codexes, but we see nothing for Sisters of Battle, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar, Orks, or IG. Why not? If you’re going to arbitrarily start making units in a codex better, it needs to be done across the board, and aimed at helping the weaker books compete because they are out of date, not aimed at making the newly released codexes better. Why give Daemons and CSM another auto-include like Bel’akor when whole codexes have few if any strong/ viable units? This just increases the power gap in 40k and we the community don’t seem to care.

Formations and Dataslates should be in the Codex. Look at the Video Game community and their constant fight against DLC content. GW is adopting the same sales model and we as a community are buying/falling for it. Formations and Dataslates for a Nid book that has been out less than 6 months… There is no reason those rules should not be in the actual codex. GW is shorting out on rules in order to keep us coming back for more. The only way to stop this trend it to STOP BUYING THEM. As long as we continue to buy these Formations and Dataslates GW will keep making them.
They are more than likely not playtested. I am not convinced that GW playtests anything at all but at the rate these new rules are coming out there is little doubt in my mind that they have not had time to playtest them even if they wanted to.

Formations could be a very good thing for the game if done correctly. They could be restricted to use within a Primary of Allied detachment which would restore some faith in the Force Org. Chart instead of simply handing them out all over the place. They need to have additional points costs that reflect the new rules offered in the formation. And should be used to increase the playability of codecies that at languishing in the middle of the development cycle. These things would breathe life back into old codexes and keep everyone excited and hopeful because everyone may get something new and cool. Instead what we have is a cheaply done, unplay-tested set of bad rules that if used make the good armies better and the bad armies worse by comparison.

Don’t buy/play Formations and Dataslates until GW handles these correctly please, or any Digital Product for that matter. The Inquisition “Codex” was criminal in it’s’ lack of original content while still costing full $30ish dollars. They could have literally created codex inquisition in an FAQ by saying, “Use the following units from Codex Inquisition and here are some warlord traits and relics…,”

And for people who dont care for another rant say I.

Is it soapbox hour already?

I would like to purchase dataslates in a printed form without waiting 2 years or forever.

 kronk wrote:
I would like to purchase dataslates in a printed form without waiting 2 years or forever.

I too would like that. Preferably in the codex

 kronk wrote:
I would like to purchase dataslates in a printed form without waiting 2 years or forever.

That's the only problem I have with them - personally love the Pik 'n' Mix style of play, don't do tournaments so don't really care about that aspect - beer and nachos all the way

Was pretty sure formations had some point cost to them.

Apocolypse is meant to be pretty over the top so getting all upset over it is rather pointless: field a ton of models and sit back and smile... it is all good.

 PotentiallyLethal wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I would like to purchase dataslates in a printed form without waiting 2 years or forever.

That's the only problem I have with them - personally love the Pik 'n' Mix style of play, don't do tournaments so don't really care about that aspect - beer and nachos all the way

The way 40k is ment to play if i wanted to play tournament competive based games id rather go for warmachine.

 Talizvar wrote:
Was pretty sure formations had some point cost to them.

Apocolypse is meant to be pretty over the top so getting all upset over it is rather pointless: field a ton of models and sit back and smile... it is all good.

The old apoc formations had a point cost to them. A lot of the new formations don't have the point bumps, but do offer additional perks if your vehicles are aligned in a certain way, if I recall what I read in the new Apocalypse book 8 months ago, correctly.

I just want rules in a book.

 Talizvar wrote:
Was pretty sure formations had some point cost to them.

Apocolypse is meant to be pretty over the top so getting all upset over it is rather pointless: field a ton of models and sit back and smile... it is all good.

He's not talking about Apoc Formations; he's talking about the kind that you can field in a normal game. Which for some strange reason, do not cost extra.

@ OP on the topic of not every army having a formation -

Wait. They just started this whole Formation thing (going by GW's pace), so not everyone has one at the moment.
The distribution bias isn't as great as FW, anyway. So far, from the top of my head, there's 1 dataslate for Marines, 1 for Chaos, 1 for Tau and 3 for nids. Hardly as Imperio-centric as FW.

I do agree that the Formations should be in the codices though, or as a free update. Pretty dick move to make you pay extra for something that could easily replace the 10-20 pages they dedicate to the "showcase" section.
Especially if said formations are needed to make the codex decent (see - Tyranids)

That is correct. Apoc is the wild west. Just go play. I am talking about Formations and Dataslates being used to in regular, competative 40k games.

I don't understand criticizing formations and not allies. It's the same kind of thing : rules that lets you bypass rules.

WhiteDog wrote:
I don't understand criticizing formations and not allies. It's the same kind of thing : rules that lets you bypass rules.

Allies don't get special rules for free.

Though the allies rule is pretty silly.

 IK Viper wrote:
Warhammer 40K is a tabletop wargame.

Therefore it can't do anything different than what you approve of? Don't be so concieted, this game has the right to grow and change however it wants.

 IK Viper wrote:
It is my opinion that Formations break this very basic agreement between players for several reasons:

So two players can't agree to not play with Formations? What about the Most Important Rule that says the game isn't just the limits of it's core rules and the intention is for both players to have fun, but then one guy surprises his opponent with 4 Riptides, how does that fit into your "basic agreement"?

 IK Viper wrote:
Formations offer additional benefits/ rules with no change in points cost.

Based on the way they approached it in Apoc, it's a reward for having an expansive and diverse collection. That with the Helbrutes at least the formations pair rewards with new penalties. If all dataslates do this then I see no real issue.

 IK Viper wrote:
Formations and Dataslates are not equally distributed among the codicies.

Dataslates are primarilly worked on by two people from GW's Digital Editions team (one does fluff, the other does rules). They're also haven't been doing them that long (mostly the Holiday season last year), give it time before you complain that they haven't done stuff for every army yet.

 IK Viper wrote:
Formations and Dataslates should be in the Codex.

Also known as "I'm mad they didn't think of this X number of months ago and are now releasing rules for this thing". As I just mentioned, it's basically two blokes who are making these things as the come up with ideas. I'm sure they're sometimes asked to try and incorporate certain models (like finding new ways to use the Helbrute) but largely I'm sure that these things are based more on what would look cool together on the table over anything else.

As for playtesting, players already downplay GW's internal playtesting (which is done in two parts: first by the dev team and second by other GW employees) so even if they do play testing it, why would this count more than codex playtesting in the eyes of the community?

 IK Viper wrote:
Don’t buy/play Formations and Dataslates until GW handles these correctly please, or any Digital Product for that matter. The Inquisition “Codex” was criminal in it’s’ lack of original content while still costing full $30ish dollars. They could have literally created codex inquisition in an FAQ by saying, “Use the following units from Codex Inquisition and here are some warlord traits and relics…,”

"Don't support things you like because I don't like them."

Regardless I'll be buying them anyways because I review them. Said reviews that help keep people from spending money blind on products they may not like/want/need.

First DLC stands for DownLoadable Content...you don't need a second content.

Also the video game community is a fundamentally different beast than the miniature wargaming community. If a video game series doesn't get updated for 5-6 years that series will experience practically no new sales and is considered more or less dead. 40K has for the majority of it life left a codex for 5-6 years without updates. This new dataslates and formations add new content between codex releases which is nice. Additionally video games are much easier to change between than miniature games. I can and do change video games I am playing at a drop of the hat and it costs between 2-50 usd and ~30 min to get the new game. If I decide the switch armies in 40K it costs 200-2000 usd and hundreds of hours to assemble and paint. I would much rather see updates to my armies so they don't stagnate for 5 years than see only a change in opponents.

The dataslates and formations are very different things. You sort of glossed over them but randomly included them just so you could rage and preach some more. Datalates largely do take up FoC and you are wrong about dataslates not being available to BA, GK, IG, etc. Cypher is available to all imperial armies except DA and the stormwing formation is similarily available to all the allies of SM above come apoc.

These have only been coming out for 3 months. They have also been focusing on the dexs that are already updated as updates for the majority of the other dexs are impending within the year. If they released something for those you would be on here complaining how they will become useless in a month or two.

The biggest thing I think you are missing is these formations require you to bring a certain set of units. The best Taudar builds did not take that many broadsides and doing so to get tank hunter will reduce the points you can use in the rest of your list. Most of the formations are actually not optimal and taking them weakens the army. The only one so far that is hands down worthwhile is the skyblight formation. Which is the only thing making tournament nids a top table contender. The living artillery and firebase formations are the remaining two that are worthwhile but are so many points they dictate your army. The rest are heavily sub optimal and you would almost never see that combination of units unless they gave special rules for free...oh, they did and you still don't see them often.

This was probably a waste of time as this was a pure rant thread but I figured I would state my opinion somewhere and your misuse of DLC made me want to correct it.

The funniest thing about all of this is that the majority of the formations have been fairly balanced and the nids and chaos dataslates and formations are the only things saving them from optimized Tau, Eldar, and Necron lists.

Not that I necessarily agree, but one could argue that the cost of taking a formation is that it forces you to purchase a specific set of units. i.e. in order to take this formation I have to take two units I wouldn't have planned to take anyway. Just because they don't have a point cost associated with them does not mean that they are necessarily without a cost on your list.

This would be more effective, however, if they were part of the FOC, not sitting next to it.

We all know that Cypher is available to basically anyone that wants him bar DA. That is why I discounted him, anyone can take him so he has little effect on the relative power levels of codexes. Everyone has access.

Having to take units that are sub-optimal is not a penalty. A codex should be written in such a way that the units cost reflects their battlefield usefulness. It is up to the general to make sure they earn that usefulness. Having to take certain "tax units," is not the point. The issue is that rules/abilities should be tied to a point cost. You cannot (fairly) alter one without altering the other. If a Broadside out of the Codex Tau Empire costs X number of points without Tank Hunter/Monster Hunter, then in order to create or atleast attempt to create a balanced formation including Broadsides with TH/MH the cost must be X + what ever value the Design Team puts on TH/MH. But to allow the purchase of the exact same unit at cost X breaks the system. If the formation stipulates that each Tau Suit used costs 5 points more becasue it has TH/MH I would endorse the formation, dispite the fact that it still would be super powerful and does not take up FOC's (which also breaks the established rules used to construct armies equally, as not all armies have access to FOC ignoring formations)

My intent and hope with this was to point out how GW is trying to get us to pay for stuff that should be in the Codex. I alone cannot change anything, as one person not buying will have no effect. However, if a large portion of the community refused to be drug along by this collection of rushed and poorly constructed rules, they would stop putting them out in such a manor.

These digital rules could be so much more then what they are. They could help add new units and abilities to old armies that are stuck waiting on a new codex. Instead what we are getting are rules that do not conform to the FOC, offer more abilities at no additional point cost, and are releases mostly for armies that are relatively new when we just got done buying the actual codex for $50. These digital products should be targetted at armies that are 1 year + out in the development cycle who are still waiting on their 6th ed. update. Give those armies something new, cool, and well thought out, instead of just throwing new rules at the newest armies becasue people are buying them. That is how you take care of the entire game of 40k, rather than looking to make a cheap buck right now.

The long term benefit would be brand loyalty becasue GW is proving that they still care about all armies, and a renewed interest from diehard players of those older armies.

I'm actually still waiting for them to add stratagems to 40k too so I can use those cool city of death and planetstrikes one.

I loved formations from apoc, and I've waited so long for this moment.

Meh, its one of those things.

The only issues i have is the way it breaks the normal force org chart (or the mess it is now anyways)

The reason there was a chart was to cap certain units.
This now skips around those and allows you a lot more choices that you wouldn't usually be able to take.

Also, printed versions would be nice too
Dont see why GW has gone soo digital when alot of people like to have a hard copy of it.

Its still early days with this though so im happy to see how it goes.
Not like things have been tilted in 40k before, just needs some time to settle.


Edit: I do see the point about formations with new rules for free though.
If i want to buff a unit or add rule you usually have to pay a tax in the form of wargear or a character to make it possible.

Compile them in a book!

 IK Viper wrote:
That is correct. Apoc is the wild west. Just go play. I am talking about Formations and Dataslates being used to in regular, competative 40k games.

My bad, I think I was pretending those formation dataslates did not exist since I was unwilling to spend the money.
Just another means to monetize.
With these added options it increasingly becoming apparent that "normal 40k" is just becoming a little brother version of Apoc.
I am unsure it is possible to have a "competitive game" anymore since the combinations just have got all that more strange.
Formations are bad I guess since the combinations are almost limitless so the "rock-paper-scissors" army net-lists are disrupted.

 kronk wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Was pretty sure formations had some point cost to them.

Apocolypse is meant to be pretty over the top so getting all upset over it is rather pointless: field a ton of models and sit back and smile... it is all good.

The old apoc formations had a point cost to them. A lot of the new formations don't have the point bumps, but do offer additional perks if your vehicles are aligned in a certain way, if I recall what I read in the new Apocalypse book 8 months ago, correctly.

I just want rules in a book.

They also used to be a lot more fun. Like the necron null field created by drawing lines from the center of monoliths that made all psycic powers not work, reduced the strength of all non-gauss weapons by one that passed though it, and gave necrons units inside +1 to all their reanimation rolls.

 IK Viper wrote:
For the exact same points cost as an equivalent group of units from Codex Tau Empire, this formation grants Tank Hunter, Monster Hunter and Proffered Enemy (Space Marines). This is supposedly off set by the fact that Space Marine units gain Hatred against them but anyone who has played 40k will tell you that if not a fair trade.

I get it, you hate Tau. Please, if you're going to complain about something the Tau have, get it right. The formation only confers Tank Hunter and Preferred Enemy (Space Marines). It does not confer Monster Hunter. In addition, any army except Tyranids can take this formation.

only tyranids should get formations

Its only fair since they lack allies

'Nids should really just be allowed to ally with themselves, it's only fair.

I think they are fine as an optional extra. I wouldn't play with them myself.

Basically, formations of are a way of rewarding people who bought so many of X that they can't actually fit them in to a FOC. Don't worry about only having 3 Fast Attack slots, buy 3 Harpy models and a bunch of gargoyles and use the Skyblight formation instead!

I'm pretty sure the game itself never entered the minds of the designers, it's simply a way to ensure you have a reason to buy even more kits.

 IK Viper wrote:
Warhammer 40K is a tabletop wargame. The basic concept behind the game is that 2 opponents use their respective codex/allied codex to construct a fighting force. The purpose of a codex is to give point values to the units used on the tabletop. A unit’s cost should be a reflection of that unit’s durability, speed, offense, and special rules/abilities that ultimately contribute to winning the game. The agreement is that each player is allowed to bring the same number of points in an attempt to set up a battle in which both sides have equal resources.

This is where you lost me.

First of all, can you tell me, WITH A STRAIGHT FACE that the 40K codexes are balanced in the first place? So a Genestealer is equal to a SM for example?

Also this sound so much like lawyer talk. "The agreement is that each player..." WTF? I come to play a game, not sign any contracts.

Again you lost me when you said codecs are balanced.

Just because two codexes aren't balanced, it does not excuse making them more unbalanced. Codexes are in theory supposed to be balanced.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because two codexes aren't balanced, it does not excuse making them more unbalanced. Codexes are in theory supposed to be balanced.

A theory that only extends as far as Nottingham it seems.

I've been working off an assumption that seems to make more sense when it comes to GW's balance: namely that they assume we'll play like they do: by taking a little of everything into an impressive looking army rather than one based on any kind of math.

Personally I hit about a middle ground on that but there are definitely people all along the spectrum with the pure math crowd finding new and interesting combinations that throw any concept on the railroad tracks seconds before the train arrives.