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.

Hi folks, an idea came to my mind.

First, let me explain my situation. I play KDK, and I am a big fan of it (not as much as when I was playing Necrons or Tau, but way more than CSM in 5th edition). Thing is, there is a ''right'' way to play KDK. You know which one I am talking about : Slaughtercult +1-2 Gorepacks + Soul Grinder OR CAD + 1-2 Gorepacks. It's pretty much the standard build right now. Thing is, how is this any different from 5th edition when the basics were a Daemon Prince of Slaanesh (w/ lash), 2 Plague Marines and then obliterators ?

I am not saying I don't like it, but I'd like more chances to diversify. I've had 3 matches 1500 pts with KDK players I didn't personnaly knew, and each time we had essentially the same thing : Juggernaut lord, 2 csm squads w/rhino, chosens, (one time the guy brought bloodletters and spawns instead of csm), a gorepack (2 bike squads, 15 hounds lead by the jugg lord) and one soul grinder (sometime with a maulerfiend).

You can get the idea of the feeling : two clones fighting each other. So it became apparent to me that some new codexes offered a lot of formations, but essentially only offer us 2 or sometime 3 formations that will always be used. So in short, my idea / question was : would it be a good thing for the players if GW designed new formations on a regular basis, on a side line of the codex production, as a way to diversify the gaming experience without having to invest money in new models that might not sell well ? They may even do so each three months via their magazines (that otherwise are of no value to people like me).

What do you think of it ?

I’m not sure if more formations would solve the problem.

There are always going to be “better” options. Whatever the most powerful option is might shift, and there might be a few things jockeying for the top slot, but there is always going to be the cream floating to the top. And competitive players are going to be choosing those top pics.

If you add more formations, you can end up with things like the Skyhammer Annihilation Force. New formation, and now the new hotness. But does nothing to help balance the game, just escalate things. And makes new models more attractive to purchase.

What we need is better internal consistency in the codexes. Possibly with formations to help shore up the weaker choices. If the gap between “good” and “bad” units (and other choices) is small, then more things become viable. But you want balance, but also diversity and variation. Which is not easy to achieve.

Right now GW is using formations as a sales tool, not a game balance one. As long as they continue to do that, I’d rather not see more spammed out.

If you really want to see diversity, formations should be removed, and a better effort should be made to achieve both internal balance within codexes.

Formations are a sales tool. They encourage players to think less and buy more, and some of the better ones are blatant pay-to-win. The result is the cookie-cutter experience of fighting a clone of your army. They're bad for the game in virtually every way. Adding more just means a bit more variation in which of several cookies you're up against today.

It's sad people already seem to be forgetting there was a time before formations. Too many comments these days propose more formations as fixes to problems with units or balance between codexes or issues with the game overall, when really these problems have their own solutions and formations are tacked on unnecessarily to sell more kits. (Sorry, old gamer rant over).

Formations homogenize lists, not the opposite.

Look at AdMech: there is exactly one way to play them competitively. One formation above all others that dictates your entire list composition.

Better unit balance dictates the variety of competitive builds. Not formations.

I wish the were some SoB formations. I like the specialists but prefer my own troops

What 40k could use is separate FOCs all tailored to mission type and more mission diversity to break up the codex hierarchy a little.

I feel that more formations as a whole would be good, as it would give more options to players when constructing their armies. However, I think that new formations should be prioritized toward the remaining 6th edition codexes and the pre-Necron 7th edition codexes, as they are the books that could most benefit from their inclusion. These books should also be updated to improve the internal balance of units within those armies.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:If you really want to see diversity, formations should be removed, and a better effort should be made to achieve both internal balance within codexes.

Formations are a sales tool. They encourage players to think less and buy more, and some of the better ones are blatant pay-to-win. The result is the cookie-cutter experience of fighting a clone of your army. They're bad for the game in virtually every way. Adding more just means a bit more variation in which of several cookies you're up against today.

It's sad people already seem to be forgetting there was a time before formations. Too many comments these days propose more formations as fixes to problems with units or balance between codexes or issues with the game overall, when really these problems have their own solutions and formations are tacked on unnecessarily to sell more kits. (Sorry, old gamer rant over).

Funnily enough, I'm seeing the exact opposite result in scenes outside of tournament-focused metas. Because of the bonuses given by formations, players are experimenting with units they would otherwise not have taken.

GW has always been about model sales, and formations are a blatant means of generating sales for under-selling kits. But the only pay-to-win example that I can think of is Skyhammer, and thanks to the magic of the Internet with the right knowledge and software it can be yours for the low price of free.

Many armies (CSM and Tyranids immediately come to mind) are strangled by the traditional FOC restrictions of a CAD. It's a great way to represent how the Imperium builds armies, and no other faction. As much as it is (rightly) hated for the massive bonus it gives, the Decurion is a very lore-friendly way of building a Necron army. Formations give the option for armies to expand outside of the CAD's restrictions and better reflect how non-Imperium factions would play on the tabletop.

the_scotsman wrote:Formations homogenize lists, not the opposite.

Look at AdMech: there is exactly one way to play them competitively. One formation above all others that dictates your entire list composition.

Better unit balance dictates the variety of competitive builds. Not formations.

The reason armies like Admech/Skitarii and Harlequins all look the same is due to lack of units, not a prevalence of formations. As of the time of this writing, Harlequins have no HQ units whatsoever, and Skitarii have the same issue. Formations and special detachments are required to field these armies because they cannot fit into a standard CAD. What would solve those armies' issues with homogenity would be more units and ways to field them, not less.

Formations are cool it gives me alternative ways to cool field stuff without being accused of going "unbound"

The buffs formations give for free are bad really bad. It would be nice if they gave advantages that you had to pay for in points, but free upgrades or discount packages are just the way to rig the game.

 Nevelon wrote:
I’m not sure if more formations would solve the problem.

There are always going to be “better” options. Whatever the most powerful option is might shift, and there might be a few things jockeying for the top slot, but there is always going to be the cream floating to the top. And competitive players are going to be choosing those top pics.

If you add more formations, you can end up with things like the Skyhammer Annihilation Force. New formation, and now the new hotness. But does nothing to help balance the game, just escalate things. And makes new models more attractive to purchase.

What we need is better internal consistency in the codexes. Possibly with formations to help shore up the weaker choices. If the gap between “good” and “bad” units (and other choices) is small, then more things become viable. But you want balance, but also diversity and variation. Which is not easy to achieve.

Right now GW is using formations as a sales tool, not a game balance one. As long as they continue to do that, I’d rather not see more spammed out.

I'd like to see more options within the CAD. Like, maybe requiring only one Troops choice rather than two... or the option to pick two total units of any time. For example, one HQ, one Troops, one Fast attack. Or, one HQ, one Elites, one Heavy. Or, one HQ, and two Elites. Something like that would be nice and would provide for many more options.

SG

Yes. Especially since it costs them nothing to do so. They can release rules for a Formation as free-to-download, (then make all the models a one-click bundle if they like) and suffer no danger to their IP, while still increasing sales for units that people consider sub-par.

Wyches, Hellions, and Mandrakes are begging for just such a Formation.

I love Formations. I seriously wish there were far more of them in the game, and that the tournament scene was less restrictive about them.

 Warzoner wrote:
Hi folks, an idea came to my mind.

First, let me explain my situation. I play KDK, and I am a big fan of it (not as much as when I was playing Necrons or Tau, but way more than CSM in 5th edition). Thing is, there is a ''right'' way to play KDK. You know which one I am talking about : Slaughtercult +1-2 Gorepacks + Soul Grinder OR CAD + 1-2 Gorepacks. It's pretty much the standard build right now. Thing is, how is this any different from 5th edition when the basics were a Daemon Prince of Slaanesh (w/ lash), 2 Plague Marines and then obliterators ?

I am not saying I don't like it, but I'd like more chances to diversify. I've had 3 matches 1500 pts with KDK players I didn't personnaly knew, and each time we had essentially the same thing : Juggernaut lord, 2 csm squads w/rhino, chosens, (one time the guy brought bloodletters and spawns instead of csm), a gorepack (2 bike squads, 15 hounds lead by the jugg lord) and one soul grinder (sometime with a maulerfiend).

You can get the idea of the feeling : two clones fighting each other. So it became apparent to me that some new codexes offered a lot of formations, but essentially only offer us 2 or sometime 3 formations that will always be used. So in short, my idea / question was : would it be a good thing for the players if GW designed new formations on a regular basis, on a side line of the codex production, as a way to diversify the gaming experience without having to invest money in new models that might not sell well ? They may even do so each three months via their magazines (that otherwise are of no value to people like me).

What do you think of it ?

This is not a problem of formations, but a problem of internal codex balance. The mathhammer crowd will only use those formations that use the units they deem worth using in a codex. If a codex, like CSM or KDK, is full of units that are overpriced compared to their power level within the codex, as these both are, then those people won't ever use them. Therefore they will not pick formations that have units like that in them. So the mentality is self limiting and no amount of formations are going to change that. So no point. The only people who will benefit from more formations are those who already play to the story and the narrative and don't have a hardcore meta that they play in. As of now the existing formations work fine for those people. They already use a bigger variety than you list. I like the first of the sub formations in the KDK because terminators work well in my group's meta. So a unit of chaos terminators and 2 units of juggers works great for me. In the few games I have run with the KDK I have not once used a gorepack at all, as I don't have a single unit of khorne bikes let alone 2. So not everyone who plays the KDK only uses the builds you list. In my meta I can use whatever I want and don't need to go for the hard kill because my meta isn't full of power gamers and we like it that way.

I think a more useful task for GW would be providing at least BASELINE formations for ALL books that have not been updated yet to mitigate the fact that they are currently painfully outclassed in many cases from free bonus formation rules and bonus formation free units.

Actually. If I were GW I would look at what armies and units that wasn't used in the biggest tournaments and then do fluffy and good formations with those units/armies.

As a way to keep balancing the game even after codexies.

But that will never happen. Sadly.

 Farstrand wrote:
Actually. If I were GW I would look at what armies and units that wasn't used in the biggest tournaments and then do fluffy and good formations with those units/armies.

As a way to keep balancing the game even after codexies.

But that will never happen. Sadly.

Haven't you heard? Only 20% of GW customers play the game, they're an insignificant fraction according to GW "market" """"research"""".

I love the idea of formations. They make sense in a fluff way and let you field odd groups without needing to do the hq and troops that you don't want to. And yeah I think some formations should get a perk for limiting what you get to choose. However they should be limiting, say you take only cc units, you get a bonus in Cc but risk getting shot to pieces. You want an all transport army cool you get mobility but at a cost. Gw need to play test and balance then formations could be awesome but until then (probably never) we just have to accept 40k is broken

um yeah, the Warhost whereby you can use 8 freaking Wraith Knights at around 2500pts

What kind of OP IMBA is this when they write these kinds of formations? Seriously did they hire another Matt Ward to write the Eldar dex?

I support them writing some good formations bonuses to sell old models that no one buys because they suck. GW needs to exploit the fan boys some more by writing some OP IMBA stuff for models they have too much on the shelves.

 Filch wrote:
um yeah, the Warhost whereby you can use 8 freaking Wraith Knights at around 2500pts

What kind of OP IMBA is this when they write these kinds of formations? Seriously did they hire another Matt Ward to write the Eldar dex?

I support them writing some good formations bonuses to sell old models that no one buys because they suck. GW needs to exploit the fan boys some more by writing some OP IMBA stuff for models they have too much on the shelves.

Technically, that's a detachment, not a formation. Also, it would be more like 3000 points. Personally, I would save my money and get a Revenant Titan. Much cheaper from Forge Wrold, and about the same level of power.

Not more formations, but Nice formations to begin with, unfortunatly, if a codex has 8 formations, 2 will be Top, 3 will be Meh at best and the rest will be useless.

No.
Get rid of Formations, Allies and Unbound period.

I think more formations is a good thing in theory - I like some of them so long as they don't give you free stuff. The Tempestus Scions ones are really neat for instance, as are the Deathwing and Ravenwing ones. Once you start giving free vehicles and so on it gets really unbalanced.

I like the concept of formations. Give small bonuses as a reward for fielding fluffy, if sub-par, units in ways that match with the background. You give up the ability to cherry pick the best units, but are rewarded for restricting yourself.

When the rewards get too large, or the restrictions are anything but, the system breaks down. And when you have a formation with both major rewards and no serious restrictions, things get broken fast.

I’m not opposed to the concept that some formations should have a buy in price. Not necessarily a unit tax, but a straight up point cost to use. After a point, if you want to tack on loads of special rules, you should be paying for them.

 Brother SRM wrote:
I think more formations is a good thing in theory - I like some of them so long as they don't give you free stuff. The Tempestus Scions ones are really neat for instance, as are the Deathwing and Ravenwing ones. Once you start giving free vehicles and so on it gets really unbalanced.

Ravenwing? Definitely. Deathwing? No. NO. NO. It adds nothing to the army, and literally makes it worse than the 6th edition DW, as you can no longer deepstrike Turn 1, even if you're a Dreadnought in a Drop Pod.

I'm really on the side that wants to just see Formations, as well as the multiple detachments rules, gone.

Free special rules, free weapons, free units, free wargear, just for taking X configuraiton of units, is awful game design, and absolutely detrimental to any sort of balance.

It's a sales vehicle for people to buy more kits of stuff that wouldn't fit in the old FoC and nothing more.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm really on the side that wants to just see Formations, as well as the multiple detachments rules, gone.

Free special rules, free weapons, free units, free wargear, just for taking X configuraiton of units, is awful game design, and absolutely detrimental to any sort of balance.

It's a sales vehicle for people to buy more kits of stuff that wouldn't fit in the old FoC and nothing more.

Yep, that's how come SM got the 3 Whirlwind, 3 Predators, 3 Vindicators, 3 Land Raiders formations. It's a trick to upsell models

The real problem I have with Formations is the ability to use them within an Unbound Army, but that is another rant entirely.

Game Workshops failure to use Formations properly will not stem from the concept of Formations, but from their crippling inability when attempting anything even resembling balance. This will likely lead become another source of power-creep, with each Codex containing a Formation designed to simply be a power house and nothing more. Instead of trying to balance Formations they really need to focus on nothing more then fluffy Formations that provide meh to okay abilities and are designed to promote the use of lesser seen Models to flesh out the game even further. Not everything needs to be 'all powerful' in order to try and maintain an already lost sense of balance.

Though we are all over looking the 'it is a marketing trick' answer above:
Game Workshop is proud of the fact all they do is sell over-priced bits of plastic, of course formations exist to simply promote sales....

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Brother SRM wrote:
I think more formations is a good thing in theory - I like some of them so long as they don't give you free stuff. The Tempestus Scions ones are really neat for instance, as are the Deathwing and Ravenwing ones. Once you start giving free vehicles and so on it gets really unbalanced.

Ravenwing? Definitely. Deathwing? No. NO. NO. It adds nothing to the army, and literally makes it worse than the 6th edition DW, as you can no longer deepstrike Turn 1, even if you're a Dreadnought in a Drop Pod.

Being able to shoot and run the turn you deep strike so you can avoid blasts and get into better formation is pretty sweet, and choosing what turn for the entire formation to drop in is pretty sweet. Even if you miss turn 1, that gives you a turn to get your bikes into position for their teleport homers.

Instead of coming up with cheesy ways to force you to buy the units that are generally (and charitably) considered "under-performing" unless taken as part of a formation, perhaps they should work on the internal and external balance of these units within their own army lists as well as in relation to similar units in other Codices.

 Brother SRM wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Brother SRM wrote:
I think more formations is a good thing in theory - I like some of them so long as they don't give you free stuff. The Tempestus Scions ones are really neat for instance, as are the Deathwing and Ravenwing ones. Once you start giving free vehicles and so on it gets really unbalanced.

Ravenwing? Definitely. Deathwing? No. NO. NO. It adds nothing to the army, and literally makes it worse than the 6th edition DW, as you can no longer deepstrike Turn 1, even if you're a Dreadnought in a Drop Pod.

Being able to shoot and run the turn you deep strike so you can avoid blasts and get into better formation is pretty sweet, and choosing what turn for the entire formation to drop in is pretty sweet. Even if you miss turn 1, that gives you a turn to get your bikes into position for their teleport homers.

But it's an intentional step backwards. You used to be able to deepstrike Turn 1 or Turn 2 without rolling. Now, unless you take the detachment, you still roll for their reserves in the DW formation. And I really don't see the added bonus of running and shooting in one turn. Maybe if it was every turn, but as it stands, Terminators are still overcosted compared to the amount of AP1/2 out there and one turn of running won't fix that.

Also, unless you take an ally or empty Land Raiders, you can no longer play a pure deepstrike DW army, as you auto lose at the end of game Turn 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Instead of coming up with cheesy ways to force you to buy the units that are generally (and charitably) considered "under-performing" unless taken as part of a formation, perhaps they should work on the internal and external balance of these units within their own army lists as well as in relation to similar units in other Codices.

Whoa! Hey now, let's not get crazy. Next you'll be asking for rules fixes and free dataslates.

I like the formations and I don't even play a codex with them. I just think they add flavor and obviously some benefits. If your sick of running into other KDK players with same army you could play less effective units.

Or there is this crazy thing that people without one of the new fancy codexs do, Its a CAD. So I pretty much play whatever I want after 1 HQ and 2 Troops.

But for real, even back in the old editions armies would be very similar to each other, you make the choice to play the good units or the no good units. Most choose the first option.

 ServiceGames wrote:
I'd like to see more options within the CAD. Like, maybe requiring only one Troops choice rather than two... or the option to pick two total units of any time. For example, one HQ, one Troops, one Fast attack. Or, one HQ, one Elites, one Heavy. Or, one HQ, and two Elites. Something like that would be nice and would provide for many more options.

SG

I actually used to love when choosing a certain HQ allowed you to unlock more of a unit, or switch it to another slot. Like SM characters on bikes allowed you to take Bikers as Troops. I'd love the same to be true of CMs with jump packs and Assault Squads. I know a lot of people didn't like that for one reason or another, but to me it really fueled fluffy lists.

As far as Formations go, I agree 100% with Nevelon and CalgarsPimpHand. They could do some good for the game, but right now they merely serve to milk players. Great concept, horrid execution (but sadly probably exactly what GW were going for...)

It would be nice if more formations were playtested before release.