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.

Forcing you to take X models to get a special benefit without paying points is totally legit. Ever read the Tyranid Codex? Tervigon gain scoring troop if you have a squads of 30 termies. It's not with points, but you're definitively paying for it.


Complaining about formations but not allies is stupid. The allied chart is unbalanced and only decided by fluff. They don't take into account what X can bring to Y by combining abilities, or if a codex have more choice of allies then another. (Also, if you take less optimal allies, you get penalization rules, without getting a discount in points!) Allies already allows most Codex to get more then the FOC and to plug some weakness. Then there's Tyranids, who get shafted both ways.

From what i heard, a lot of tournament allows only allies or formations. That would be a good way to restrict the abusive combo of having formations from two different armies.

Also, a bunch of armies can already f**k with the FOC. They can take dedicated transports for different slots, resulting in 9+ vehicules of the same type.



The only thing true about your rant is that it's in big part a marketing plot. If they had waited a bit and playtested with costumers, they wouldn't have to release 3 dataslates for a few months old Codex (that was considered crap by almost everyone).

Addaran wrote:
Complaining about formations but not allies is stupid.

FWIW, I dislike the allies system too.

There's too many things that suck in 40k to complain about them all simultaneously, don't assume a person who dislikes formations also doesn't dislike allies

The 40k FOC is stupid to begin with, the whole elites-troops-fast attack-heavy support limited choices thing is silly IMO. But then breaking the FOC once you've bothered to establish it is even sillier.

Formations are great. If the new helbrute and tyranid ones are any indication of the future, it's a good way for GW to attempt to balance and tweak codexes after they come out, or at least make underused units more interesting. Instead of waiting for 5 years for the next iteration of a codex, dataslates and formations are acting like patches to try and keep things fresh (wither they succeed or not is another matter).
Yeah, theyre charging money for them, but hell, they never did this sort of rules addition in FAQs and Erratas anyways.

The FOC is dissolving at a pretty rapid pace, which is something I'm totally ok with. More options means more ways to balance a list. We all know GW isnt going to do it themselves, but with access to a zillion options, now you're not locked into a single crappy codex or limited FOC slots forever. Theyre never going to get the balance right, but if they just throw enough gak at the fan, it's easier for players to pick what they want.

 McGibs wrote:
Formations are great. If the new helbrute and tyranid ones are any indication of the future, it's a good way for GW to attempt to balance and tweak codexes after they come out, or at least make underused units more interesting. Instead of waiting for 5 years for the next iteration of a codex, dataslates and formations are acting like patches to try and keep things fresh (wither they succeed or not is another matter).
Yeah, theyre charging money for them, but hell, they never did this sort of rules addition in FAQs and Erratas anyways.

How is that a good thing? You're getting charged a lot more for a codex now and it's not play tested so the rules leave some units useless. But then to fix the issue GW makes you pay extra on top of the codex just to get a working unit that should have been good in the first place since you pay $50 for the rulebook.

This would be like buying Modern Warfare i and finding out half the weapons in the game glitch up and are unusable. To fix it they decide to patch it for a small additional fee.
We are constantly getting charged more and more for less and less quality. Singing praises should be the last thing on anyone's mind.

I just concerned about the about having NO LIMIT to them, which would worry me with people paying minimal points on the primary and stuff as many formations as they can afford.

But that's the only thing. I don't mind these, as some one else put it its patching the game to improve balance (because vanilla Tyranids and CSM aren't the most balanced armies compared to the entire body of armies).

Just so you know OP, this game isn't competitive by nature, due to the numerous rule holes and'supposedly broken' unit selections. This game is a casual game best played by friends, while doubling as the marketing strategy of a miniatures company. Given the game is their property they have every right to morph this game into what they like. My ultimate goal is to 'forge the narrative' with the SMs I play and win some, lose some along the way.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
'Nids should really just be allowed to ally with themselves, it's only fair.

well that's essentially what a formation is

Formations are thus far the only thing in 40k I've found that I won't bother playing a game with, generally just on principle.

Free abilities and special rules just because you took X combination of units (that don't take up FoC slots or even count in place of Allies) for free? Nope.

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

And so ? How is that different from, say, playing Adepta Sororitas against any real codex ?

When in doubt, more options is always preferred.

Access to formations has buffed a bland Tyranid codex and made Helbrutes useful. I think it's fair to complain about some things that should've been in a codex in the first place, and that it's an irritating business practice, but if you really don't want to pay for the dataslates you can torrent them for free online.

I can't think of any examples of how access to formations has influenced my gaming experience in a negative way, although I haven't yet run into the Firebase Cadre. 40k wasn't balanced beforehand anyway.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Formations are thus far the only thing in 40k I've found that I won't bother playing a game with, generally just on principle.

Free abilities and special rules just because you took X combination of units (that don't take up FoC slots or even count in place of Allies) for free? Nope.

Formations are also the only thing saving the Tyranids from occupying the same pit of shame that the SoBs and last few 5e/4e (and not built for 6e like the GKs and Necrons) books do.

But I've long given up hope that GW will do anything but screw over Tyranid players by nerfing all their current builds into the ground or outright invalidating them and then forcing them to buy a billion new expensive models and overpriced out of codex supplemental material. And even then, the Guard, Wolves, and GK of yesteryear and the Tau, Eldar, and Daemons of today still put this god damn army in an unphill battle.

Cover ignoring? Nope.

Anti-air? You get the Crone and the Tyrant, otherwise get bent.

Decent AP on shooting? Hah, you wish.

Deployment options? Unless you have formations or are using a Lictor/Ravener/Trygon/Mawloc army, you can get bent.

Psykers? For whatever reason, you can't get any BRB powers like most other psykers can, have this mediocre table with generally inferior powers than what the BRB can give you instead.

Good special gear? Lol, you're not getting anything as nice or cool as what Chaos, the Daemons, or Space Marines can have. Have stuff like a 40 point synapse extender, and to add insult to injury we'll call it Bio-artefacts because that's totally not a stupid name.

Want cool rules like warp storm, ATSKNF and chapter tactics, battle focus, markerlights, champions of chaos and marks, and what not? Screw you, have Synapse instead, you get fearless and if you ever not have synapse, you get to watch your army eat itself. Because this is how you balance armies.

Want a cool HQ beatstick? Nope, you get a heavily nerfed and point bumped swarmlord who gets his face beaten in by a generic pimp my Iron Hands Chaptermaster, an Old One Eye who still isn't useful, Tyrants who should be flying, criminally overcosted Primes, and a Deathleaper who is going to get slaughtered in challenges with most high-value targets. You want assault, better go buy Warriors and Carnifexes, which I guess is one way of getting us to buy them again, but giving a short range army mediocre assault ability in it's HQ section? Really GW?

Tervigons? GW wants you to buy models for Skyblight and Endless Swarm, time for the nerf bat.

Balancing the Tyranids against their two worst match ups in the Grey Knights and Dark Eldar? Nope.jpg

Warlord traits? MEH!

Those Scything Talons you all have? Poof, they're now just window dressing. For no reason.

So what's your salvation besides resigning yourself to another edition of samey, boring builds?

Formations, most of which need models you likely don't already have. Forgeworld? Only the Dark Eldar get fewer goodies useful outside of apocalypse from Forgeworld than the Tyranids. Maybe you'll get some overpriced supplement down the line that you'll need to buy.

So yes, formations are a problem. But not because they're overpowered, but because GW thinks that hiding all the good options in stuff outside of the codex so you'll have to spend more than twice as much if you want flavor or competitive strength is okay.

This is what I was afraid of when they started doing supplements. Not that they'd break the game, but that GW would start releasing vanilla codexes that were boring and understrength so that you'd have to buy Supplements, Forgeworld, and Dataslates just to compete.

Formations are a two-fold problem:
1. Already overpowered Codices like Tau can "win-more" with them
2. GW can double their profit by giving you a bland bare-bones codex then making you buy all the good rules as the equivalent to DLC. Then your group bans all formations because of problem #1 and you're stuck with a mediocre book.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Then your group bans all formations because of probelm #1 and you're stuck with a mediocre book.

And a bunch of models you can't use because the formation was FOC breaking so now you can't legally use them.

champions of chaos [

This is nice or 'cool'? It's one of the worst problems with the CSM codex as it is.

I don't like formations , because non of the models I have and use in my army got any right now .

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

champions of chaos [

This is nice or 'cool'? It's one of the worst problems with the CSM codex as it is.

It at least, usually doesn't punish you. Sure a pimp my Lord/Sorc turning into a Spawn or naked Daemon prince sucks, but I've found it to generally be worth ten points on a champion. Synapse though, just gives you a fearless bubble and the moment you lose it you are at risk of massive penalties.

Dawn of war 2 gave cool ideas like damage synapse, speed synapse, defensive synapse, and such. Make it more than just a bland fearless bubble that occasionally dicks with Psykers. Make it an actual strength rather than a tax and a soft-wall for your movement and deployment.

But nope, not only does synapse remain just a SitW and Fearless bubble, but now punishes you harder if you don't constrict yourself to it's bubbles. And as a confusing insult to injury, two of the last three remaining Tyranid special characters don't offer synapse and have the audacity to take up an HQ slot in the process. While also still being bad and locking you into meh warlord traits (the Swarmlord's is pointless, and the Deathleaper is going splat against any IC worth a damn in a challenge, and while Old One Eye's trait is thematic and makes sense, it still involves taking Old One Eye who isn't a particularly good beatstick, tank, or leader).

And as I said before, Chaos has a few pretty nice unique wargear items like the Daemonheart and Axe of Blind Fury. There are some stinkers like the Dimension Key, but god damn is the Tyranid bio-artefact list mediocre. Everything is overpriced and underwhelming and I am deathly afraid that GW is going to release a supplement book (or two, or three) that has a vastly superior warlord trait table and bio-artefact list as a slap in the face to everyone who bought the codex.

The Chaos Space Marines have also been shafted by meh codexes, something that I blame on GW trying to fit what logically should be at least six books (Undivided legions, renegades, and the monogod armies) going by how they divide the loyalist marines into a single codex. I agree that it's almost criminal how GW wastes the potential flavor of Chaos by squeezing it into two books and pretending that Chaos Xenos and Guard don't exist and then doing a wonky job with the two books they do put out.

Don't get me wrong, I love 40k. I've sunk enough money into the game to have bought a sweet car or a decent home had I made different life choices. This is why I get so angry at GW when it mismanages this game. I've had Chaos and Tyranid armies (among others) for years now and it breaks my heart to see GW doing what they are to these armies by cutting out their heart and soul while having the audacity to squirrel away the really nice stuff in expensive supplements, dataslates, and forgeworld.

The formations do not offer special rules "for free", as the opportunity cost is being ignored.

If I want TH but dont want two units of broadsides? Tough. Haveto pay for them, even if they duplicate an ability I already have in my list. So it isnt in any way "free" - being forced to take X, Y, Z of something is in itself a cost.

I also disagree that these should have been in the codex. The new model allows them to recover from the CH issue - how to provide continuing interest while having a codex release cycle of 5 or so years. PReviously they tried leaving gaps int eh dex, to fill with models - resulting in other companies directing GW release schedules. Not good for them. This way, if they want to add something they can. It is also *far* lower cost to produce - they pay per download, as opposed to having to commit to X print run and the associated logistics, even with direct only, as every new SKU means another slot in the warehouse has to be found, and anyone with ANY background in logistics will say this isnt as trivial as it first appears! (dsiclosure - I work for a premium car manufacturing company, in audit, so I see all these issues. A simple change from large box parts to small box parts is a huge endeavour)

I also disagree that they should be printed - while I *love* books, for little addons like this I prefer a digital format - my solely-40k set of shelving is already creaking! It also feeds into the business case for producing them in the fierst place.

LAstly, it gives GW some freedom to experiment. A codexis a fixed commitment, with a long payoff. These - not so much.

The whining about GW not including rules / expansions like they used to has now mutated into GW providing rules and expansions for the game...gamers are never happy.

40k is, literally, a framework, as you are told on page 108. Trying to stop something you dont like is fine. Trying to stop others from enjoying it, when their enjoyment in no way impacts your game? Not cool

(note - I also dont blindly buy everything either - however they are almost impulse buys)

(Final disclosure - two good friends now work for the studio, and one had a hand in the latest Helbrute slate on the fluff side, so I do have smoe bias, however I have tried to be objective here, as much as possible)

My initial post was aimed at competative play and encouraging balance. Maybe I should have titled it "Formations are bad for Competative 40k,"

I do not think Codexes are balanced either, but that is a whole different discussion. What I was trying to focus on is the illogical way GW is constructing these Formations. The game needs a baseline/frame of reference. The codecies are that baseline.

I think that GW does a very poor job of comparing the points cost of units they are releasing to the points cost of similar units throughout the game system as well, for example:

A Blood Angel Tactical Marine costs 16 points. While a SM Tac. Marine now costs 14 points. The 2 units are basically identical yet one unit is 2 points cheaper.
A SoB Battel Sister vs a Chaos Space Marine. Battle Sisters are 12 points each with S3, T3, I3. For 1 point more the Chaos Marine has S4, T4, I4.

If GW would take the time to compare the points cost of new units to similar units throughout the range, (the whole range, not just the last few codecies) the codecies themselves would be more balanced and codex creep would be reduced (They don't want this either)

However, that is some what subjective and not really an argument that will yield any useful conclusion.

I agree that the allies situation is also not ideal, but again that is not the subject of the post. I really think allies are ok so long as the Codecies are written correctly. Allies still use the points costs found in a codex and they do function within their own FOC. I think any of the huge abuses of allies could have been avoided with different wording in the codecies themselves, for example: if a Tau Buff Commander's support systems only worked on units from Codex Tau Empire... Or if Baron Sathonix grants hit and run to units from Codex DE. A simple FAQ could close these loop holes and reign in some of the more abusive Allies combos but GW has taken no action... Maybe it is time for the community to take steps on their own.

What I am focused on is the points disparity between the exact same unit and its formation enhanced equivilant. As for the cost of having to take certain units, if the codex was written correctly each unit should be useful for its points, and even if it is not, the ability to override the FOC should off set the precieved downside of taking certain units.

 IK Viper wrote:
My initial post was aimed at competative play and encouraging balance. Mybe I should have titled it "Formations are bad for Competative 40k,"

That would have been a good idea, yes. It would have set the tone for the rant better and given us a much more well defined scope of why it's bad instead of the shotgun blast that hit everything, competitive or not.

Well, I for one agree with the opening post. The whole Dataslate policy and those plug-in supplements that the IoM is being buried in (Knights, Tempestus, Inquisition, Legion of the Damned, - to be continued) can only be described as a huge scam by GW and I will not pay a single cent as long as they keep this up.

Being bad at general balance is one thing. You can't blame someone for sucking at something, no one's perfect. But this is a clearly designed policy to get more money for less work, adding additional problems to a system that wasn't running smoothly as it was.

 Kain wrote:

Dawn of war 2 gave cool ideas like damage synapse, speed synapse, defensive synapse, and such. Make it more than just a bland fearless bubble that occasionally dicks with Psykers. Make it an actual strength rather than a tax and a soft-wall for your movement and deployment.

This. Gaunts in DoWII are slightly sub par on their own, but when the synapse is stacked up they become a deadly foe.

 Kosake wrote:
Well, I for one agree with the opening post. The whole Dataslate policy and those plug-in supplements that the IoM is being buried in (Knights, Tempestus, Inquisition, Legion of the Damned, - to be continued) can only be described as a huge scam by GW and I will not pay a single cent as long as they keep this up.

You should see all the allies they had in 2nd edition if you for a second think they're being buried now. Space Marines (and this is before they split into a bunch of separate codexes) allied with: Imperial Agents (which included: Adeptus Arbites, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Ministorum, Adeptus Astra Telepathica, Officio Assassinorum and the Inquisition), Imperial Guard, Squats and Eldar the same way regardless of any distrust you might expect between those factions.

Each of those Imperial Agents could basically be a mini-codex these days. Honestly it looks more like GW is pushing to go back to the more open ended feel of RT and 2nd Edition where the game is a tool box for playing whatever you want (something that's supported by the "Spirit of the Game" in the early part of the core rule book) rather than just having to play one specific way.

My only real issue with formations is the DLC aspect. Formation dataslates should be free downloads for two reasons:

1) They want to shift more models, and if players can see how effective or cool these formations are in advance they're more likely to buy the required models. Charging for content that would have been a free PDF download a few years ago (and most competitors still deliver freely) is nuts, especially when the underlying aim is to promote model sales.

2) An opponent should at least have a vague idea of what an opponent can field before a game, and hiding potentially game-changing rules in niche DLC is not conducive to friendly gaming. Imagine if you had no clue it was possible to field incontestable scoring units, only to end up facing 100+ Gargoyles from multiple Skyblights. Surprise!
It's easy enough to borrow or flick through a friends' codex before a game, expecting to use their tablet for download-only paid content is another matter.

Formations are basically fine in their current format, and are certainly no worse than Allies mechanics or cramming Super Heavy units into formerly regular games. The FOC system is a bloated mess, but this isn't solely down to formations.
Dataslates should just be free PDFs. Or at least publish the handful of rules pages for free, and make the fluff-heavy downloadable version a pocket-money friendly £1-3.

Oh, and if you think we're never going to see dataslates for other codexes you're mad. We've already seen things like CSM Helbrutes, or Ghost Warriors for Eldar, and I have zero doubt the IG and Ork releases will be followed up by more digital shovelware. Rest assured, GW will have these things published as fast as their infinite-army-of-monkeys-at-keyboards can plop them out.

It's not like they're busy updating FAQs or anything...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Free abilities and special rules just because you took X combination of units (that don't take up FoC slots or even count in place of Allies) for free? Nope.

See, I like them for the exact opposite reason. You get bonuses because you're playing with a fluffy group of models, rather than a hyper-optimised mish-mash. I'd never dream of taking vanilla Lictors or Genestealers as they are in the codex, but the Vanguard stuff is interesting enough to use from time to time. The codex does nothing to encourage hormagaunts alongside termagants, but the Endless Swarm formation is a nice little boost to taking a horde theme.

Of course the underlying issue is poor internal unit balance in certain codexes, but seeing these issues resolved isn't too likely anytime soon. Formations are an acceptable substitute for the time being.

That is kind of true, except with say Tau, when my fluffy combo is what people aready take.

Those dataslates and formations you speak of should be in the codex. Specially if they can put them out within months of the codex release. If we keep buying them they will keep making them and treating us like addicted children.

They would better serve the entire range of 40k armies if they stopped putting out stuff for new armies and focused on old, out of date armies that need the help. By releasing updated points costs for basic units to bring them in line with the 6th ed. armies for example: There is no reason when Dark Angels came out that all Tac. Marine equivilants should not have been adjusted to the new 14 point standard for a marine. This does something useful for all armies and helps keep old armies competative but they did not do that, simply becasue they want the new stuff to be better. Also, there is no reason all missile launchers (Loyalist, Traitor, IG, etc.) should not have the flak missile option (not that people use it) in order to promote equal access to anti-air options.

They would hate for people with old armies to still be on par with the new stuff becasue ... that would create a balanced game and people would not flock to the new releases so they can have the most powerful stuff.

Dataslates could be a great way to introduce new models to existing ranges outside of the development cycle and then backing it up with rules.

It is really easy to make a new army appealing by simply dropping the points cost on existing stuff, there by making it relativly more powerful. That is not game design. Game design is taking the same basic units and adding in new ones/ new synergies that further define the way that army plays, while not making them more overtly powerful than the other factions.

What we are getting are minimal effort products aimed at feeding off of the impulse buyer out there, and the sad part is... we are collectivly falling for this ploy head over heals. We are teaching GW that we will infact jump at what ever shiny they dangle infront of us, without considering if they are doing enough to deserve our money. If PP did this to their customers they would drop off the map, GW has such a following that they think they can get away with it.

Let's prove them wrong.

An argument that keeps coming up is that you have to pay for content that "should" have been available already.

Is it not kosher to recommend torrenting GW dataslates for free then? As long as you're careful about what website you use, it's a victim less crime.

 Truth118 wrote:
An argument that keeps coming up is that you have to pay for content that "should" have been available already.

Is it not kosher to recommend torrenting GW dataslates for free then? As long as you're careful about what website you use, it's a victim less crime.

We don't talk about torrents period here.

A good way to balance formations is taking them as an allied slot. That way you can't have allies and formations at the same time.

 Kain wrote:
We don't talk about torrents period here.

Pyrovores should have had Torrent :(

 IK Viper wrote:

A Blood Angel Tactical Marine costs 16 points. While a SM Tac. Marine now costs 14 points. The 2 units are basically identical yet one unit is 2 points cheaper.

Except you have no idea what you're taking about. A 10 man tac squad from either army with a plasmagun and missile launcher with veteran sgt is 180 pts. Please compare apples to apples if you're going to whine about random things. The only thing the current marines have other the Blood angels is more options. These options will surely follow into the Blood Angel codex when it is released again.

 xttz wrote:

 Kain wrote:
We don't talk about torrents period here.

Pyrovores should have had Torrent :(

So should Heavy Flamer Immolators (that or Fast). Can't drive more than 6" and still shoot. Thanks GW!