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.

6th has been out for about 3 years now, and since then, the allies matrix has been added and, more recently, lots and lots of special detachments, formations and mini codices

Now that the combinations of armies are virtually limitless, do you prefer the current state of warhammer 40k when we only speak about how you build your armies and lists or do do you prefer the more compartimentalized and structured way of doing thing as it was in fifth with only a single codex and a single standard CAD to work with for a scecific list.

I understand that with the current state, nothing prevents anyone to do single standard CAD codex lists. But I am currious to know if you would like the single codex army list to be enforced by the rules as it was in fifth.

I have to say that I am ambivalent.
At first, I liked how the Allies matrix provided options. I was hyped with the expension mini dex to expand a core codex. But now that we are swarmed by formations and mini stand alone dexes, I feel a bit overwhelmed I am in a state where I would like to own everything just to be able to do the exact list I would when I feel like it. There are other times when I think, damn, it was simpler in the days. You built your list based on one codex and you knew that you would fight an opponent with a single codex list.

Anyways, what do you think?

I liked when I didn't have to have a masters in GW logic to be able to know what was available. It was "you like this army? Get this Codex and the rulebook. Go out, have fun."

Allies and, Unbound and Detachments, hell yes! They open up so many options for more thematic options for lists, and just make the game so much more flexible. Can't recall the last time I ran a single codex list!

Formations I don't like a) as they force anyone using them into taking the same units, so it cuts down on creativity in building armies and b) I don't like the idea of free bonuses for taking certain units, which makes the restricting Formations strictly better than taking them separately.

Point b) could easily be fixed just by going back to the old style of Formation, where you pay a premium to get those bonuses.

I rather more options, but I rather balance as well. So a mix of sorts

It can get pretty intense but really the worst thing to happen is WWP Wraithguard, which is something that shouldn't exist at all.

I'm with Paradigm. There should be a check-box option for which ones you like, and a checkbox option for "I don't like any!"

I like the detachments, and I don't mind if someone says that want to play Unbound for a casual game. Even a single Knight isn't bad (though you really should check with your opponent before bringing super-heavies). Formations are the same as Super-Heavies; to me, they just belong in Apocalypse, not in 1500 points or lower.

Heck, I remember when you used to need at least 1500 points just to bring most special characters!

I think Allies and Detachments are great, especially as an IoM player. So many possibilities.

Formations are weird, some are just stupid or too strong. Don't like them.

 Vector Strike wrote:
I rather more options, but I rather balance as well. So a mix of sorts

For sure. The current state would be unbeatable if GW had payed good attention to balance.
But we all know that balance is just an utopia. Very unfortunatelly.

Can't stand them. Each new edition that comes out things get worse and worse. Since 4th edition I've been saying to myself 'well maybe the next edition will be the one that GW decides they're a game company and not just a plastic miniatures company'. But each new set of rules comes out makes me wonder why I even bother anymore.

Allies and unbound make no sense whatsoever from a gaming standpoint. The only way detachments and formations would work is if they did away with the eleventybillion imperial books and just used formations/detachments to let players play as Dark Angels, Space Wolves, etc.

One of these years this will be a Hasbro product and maybe then the game will be interesting again.

I really like the concept, but would prefer there to be two levels only. Battle brothers and allies of convenience. Nothing after that.
I like formations as they remind me of the old epic detachments. A good way to build forces.
So yes, I like the current system, it allows me to collect multiple small armies and use them together legally.

Love allies, its the only thing letting me play my list the way I want it.

If I had to pick between 5th's army construction and the current system, it'd be 5th hands down.

That said, the basic idea of allies and detachments/formations isn't a bad one, but GW's implementation completely ruined it for me, and the game, in my opinion.

If GW made better use of this thing called the 'Internet', and realized its rules were of a quality they should either be free or in the single digit range, it would help. Putting everything in the same location would also help, instead of scattering rules across codices, supplements, dataslates, and WD rules.

There's much left to be desired with the current system, and while 5th's system was more restrictive for pick up or tournament gaming, it was also simple, effective, better balanced, and cheaper.

Nvs wrote:
Can't stand them. Each new edition that comes out things get worse and worse. Since 4th edition I've been saying to myself 'well maybe the next edition will be the one that GW decides they're a game company and not just a plastic miniatures company'. But each new set of rules comes out makes me wonder why I even bother anymore.

Allies and unbound make no sense whatsoever from a gaming standpoint. The only way detachments and formations would work is if they did away with the eleventybillion imperial books and just used formations/detachments to let players play as Dark Angels, Space Wolves, etc.

One of these years this will be a Hasbro product and maybe then the game will be interesting again.

Hasbro would release a game called "Space Marine Tycoon" where the whole object is to build interesting fortresses for budding Space Marine successors while battling the Imperial Bureaucracy for loan money. If your fortress isn't liked by enough Space Marines it gets branded as heretical and purged from space

I really still prefer the old pre-6E style.

The game is becoming increasingly imbalanced, armies increasingly less coherent and adherent to the background, special rules and abilities increasingly powerful and absurd, and games increasingly one-sided in many instances. I've seen a whole lot more tablings and games that were effectively pre-determined before any dice were rolled of late than in 4E or 5E. The kind of stuff we're routinely seeing on tables now would have gotten nothing but mocking and jeering had they been put in the "proposed rules" forum 18 months ago.

I really never thought I'd look back on 5E favorably, but formations, multiple detachments, allies, etc are turning the game more and more into something akin to MTG, and the viability of TAC lists is rapidly declining.

Also, the very idea of things like formations offering huge bonuses and special rules, for zero additional points investment, is galling.

Personally I love allies, it add variety to armies and games between the three or four good friends are always changing.

That said the current influx of formations and detachments is to much. I like a choice of two detachments or so per army that gives simple basic boosts or changes, again it adds variety.

The biggest downside now is in a few random games over the past 3 months people have either not understood one of the hundred rules their army can now get or they flat out cheated and hoped I didn't know.... which I did.

That and some armies (Hi crons) have way over the top buffs from said formations/detachments.

I really like unbound, because I can make some really interesting lists with it. However, I also understand that unbound as a system can never be used in the competitive scene - with the way 40K is played, it can create some really awkward rock-paper-scissors scenarios.

The allies system, I can't really comment on as I haven't used it at all. It seems very good in theory. I like the combo potential it provides. BB factions benefit the most obviously, which leaves certain forces like 'nids and orks in the dust a bit, but I don't mind. I hope that GW either creates BB allies for these factions later on, or updates their codexes to make them better 'stand-alone' forces.

Formations, I honestly don't know what to think about 'em. I like the idea. I also really like the formations of formations, like the necron decurion and the eldar warhost. I don't think it's a good thing that only the most recently updated armies have access to them though. It's probably just me being jealous.

As for the rumored skitarii + cult mech + knight 'mega-formation': I don't like the principal, but I doubt it'll make great waves. At the points levels people play these days (1500-2000 mostly) the free upgrades don't mean much on min. sized squads. At higher point games, I imagine it'll get out of control though. I'm only worried that it'll be a trend, and that post cult mech armies will now have a mega-formation like that, It'll just lead to an arms race, which I don't really like. Why should your faction's power level be determined by when it was updated? Then again, it has always sort of been like this, I suppose.

In the end, I shouldn't worry too much. I'm not a competitive player myself and don't even game that much these days. Plus, after I move for good, the games I'll be getting will be fluffy ones with a group of close friends.

I honestly never liked 5th edition or its organization method. The FOC shifting was interesting, but I prefer unbound to it. Due to the simpler rules though, 5th was better for tournaments and made for better pick-up games.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also, the very idea of things like formations offering huge bonuses and special rules, for zero additional points investment, is galling.

This is perhaps the biggest problem I see. It's in your Codex so it's perfectly OK, but is it fair? And codex imbalance in general. Why can some have everything or almost everything when others still don't have fliers, AA, psykers/defense or even a weapon above S8? Oh, ofc - allies. Your favorite army is crap but you can make it work by buying another Codex and models from another army! Genius!

The basic ideas are good, don't get me wrong. It's both fluffy and reasonable that some armies can ally. It's not unreasonable that a specialist formation gets some bonus for their speciality. But there seems to be no or little thought of balancing it. I should probably just give up and put my SoB in BA/SW drop pods, fluff be damned. At least they wouldn't have to buy more expensive tracked transports and they'd be at point-blank range immediately instead of driving and/or footslogging for 2-3 turns first while taking massive casualties.

I remember when formations were a fairly obscure apocalypse thing. Although they did have fairly amusing shenanigans like the much hated monolith phalanx.

 Blacksails wrote:
If I had to pick between 5th's army construction and the current system, it'd be 5th hands down.

That said, the basic idea of allies and detachments/formations isn't a bad one, but GW's implementation completely ruined it for me, and the game, in my opinion.

If GW made better use of this thing called the 'Internet', and realized its rules were of a quality they should either be free or in the single digit range, it would help. Putting everything in the same location would also help, instead of scattering rules across codices, supplements, dataslates, and WD rules.

There's much left to be desired with the current system, and while 5th's system was more restrictive for pick up or tournament gaming, it was also simple, effective, better balanced, and cheaper.

I feel like this is the crux of the issue for me.

On paper I quite like the idea of formations and allies. It's fluffy and fun.

In practice? GW is fething terrible at writing rules and keeping things balanced, so game suffers massively for these things.

Allies are fun and there is a lot of fluffy combinations.

I like the idea of formations but so far the implementation of it has only caused a mess with balance on a already poorly balanced game. We are only going to get more and more of them it seems with GW stuffing them with everything they release.

I personally think the concept was derived only to sell more product. Just like data cards were introduced for maelstrom missions so they could sell more product.

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
If I had to pick between 5th's army construction and the current system, it'd be 5th hands down.

That said, the basic idea of allies and detachments/formations isn't a bad one, but GW's implementation completely ruined it for me, and the game, in my opinion.

If GW made better use of this thing called the 'Internet', and realized its rules were of a quality they should either be free or in the single digit range, it would help. Putting everything in the same location would also help, instead of scattering rules across codices, supplements, dataslates, and WD rules.

There's much left to be desired with the current system, and while 5th's system was more restrictive for pick up or tournament gaming, it was also simple, effective, better balanced, and cheaper.

I feel like this is the crux of the issue for me.

On paper I quite like the idea of formations and allies. It's fluffy and fun.

In practice? GW is fething terrible at writing rules and keeping things balanced, so game suffers massively for these things.

I agree with this. Allies have led to an increase in uniformity of armies as people tend to ally things in for the main purpose of benefiting themselves rules-wise. The whole Battle Brother mechanic has really caused a lot of problems with 40k in its current form.

I do like the new army releases, such as the Adeptus Mechanicus, but of course GW is butchering that by trying to sell what essentially boils down to a $70 codex ($110 if you want to use Knights as well) for one army.

I'm really not a fan of formations. The situation where formation are offering free units (as with the new Mechanicus book) are particularly galling as it represents further diluting of units. I'm pretty sure we're getting to the point where a 1500pt army in 3rd edition would only be half the size of a 1500pt army in 7th, and that is a really big problem.

Beyond this, I just don't enjoy how complicated the army building process is. The game seems like it's becoming an exercise in purchasing and list crafting, with all gaming being decided by some random rolls, after which you shake your opponent's hand and pack up.

I think both are extremes. I would prefer somewhere in the middle but I am still having fun with the current system.

To chime in on the above, allies, formations et al, could have been something glorious (and I know some people find it to be), but rather than "ordered chaos" we just got "do whatever", which turned into,
"we don't have to provide armies with their own way of dealing with things, you can just use allies, aren't you having more fun having to spend money on another codex and army, that may have not even been your second choice of army, but is the one you choose to fill the gap in your preferred army".

I mean it hurts enough when your codex gets gutted/turned into an ebook/ a vehicle for another codex, but having people turn around and say "well just use allies" it kills my interest.

Balance thrown completely overboard, 40k becoming more and more pay-to-win, even more chaotic than before and extremely hard for beginners to get through with tons of "totally not DLC".

Not a hard choice to make.

5th was too rigid, 7th is too far in the other way. I like allies as a concept, but I really think 6th was the sweetspot.

Allies are fine, but Battle Brothers break the game over their collective IoM a Eldar Taxi Service Knees.

I don't like all the formations with large bonuses at zero cost.

I do not like SH and GCs forced into 40k. I do not want to play Apoc.

I do not like the obvious money grab minimual rule codices.

I do not like the mid edition gear changes... Mid 6th with Tau, Eldar, Daemons, and Space Marines.... Early 7th... then Necron and Eldar...

All I ask for is a reasonbly varied and balanced game. The better the game balance the more vaible builds and larger our collections grow and the more money GW makes. Short term cash grabs are driving players away, it has killed our local 40k crowd, and has almost driven a diehard like me completely out.... down to one army.


Alies, Detachments, and Formations are fine, but no in this unrestrained no quality control, no balance, forge the narrative way they have been implemented.


And you forgot to add flyers to that list.

Didnt mind it before. still dont mind it

But the decurion feels redundant when there was a perfectly good formation system already.

It makes list building far far more fun and interesting. And when it comes to games, every game is far more unique in my experiance.

I think having them all is fine and I don't think there is anything wrong with the rules for them. Its really how individuals use them whether they use it as something uplifting to the game or not. For me its meta and how players use them that I find unfortunate; I think whats intended as thematic things are used more for the gaminess of it. I'm not a competitive player but to them maybe this sort of gaminess is uplifting to their hobby. Even when I put myself into a competitive gamer's head, I still feel I'd rather see individual armies playing competitively than this everyone can take a crutch sort of competitive mindset.

The only real down side... Allies have impacted the hobby because I see fewer cohesive looking armies. For example alot of people say the best way to take Skittarii rests on taking drop pods... thematically is it really a "Skittarii army" any more?-half way anyways. I feel like there is something lost when a given army never really has to have a weakness since you can just ally in what you need or what optimizes its strengths.

So you're blaming the players for not playing with the rules correctly?

Interesting.