Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What would you think of this rule?

"Formations are only permitted if and only if they include units that may not be taken in a CAD."

Basically bans most formations. The exception is for things like Mechanicus and Harlies that cannot be taken without a formation (aside from Unbound).

Do you think this would make the game better?

Do you think that, aside from Eldar, the game would be more balanced?

As somebody who loves narrative play, scenarios and story-based campaigns 7th edition has been awesome. Unbound and formations (and the army design flexibility in 7th in general) has opened up so many options that facilitate these styles of play.


I think it would make more sense to ban a**holes, TFGs, Netdeckers, and those that attempt to use the rules as a weapon: In other words find better friends.

Hmm. I don't think I'd be a fan, Bharring. Many of my eldar formations are pretty unnecessary, but I've *just* started being able to use genestealers without getting wrecked thanks to manufactorum genestealers. Orks, 'nids, daemonkin, and certain perfectly fluffy forms of marine armies all kind of depend on formations to get a little boost don't they?

That said, I do wonder if playing without decurion style armies might make life easier for some players.

I guess what I'm saying is that there are certain formations and detachments and units I don't like, and everyone in the world should have to ask me for approval before fielding them. *nods*

Nope. Formations are the stuff! 2+ Harness the warp? Yes sir!

Ban formation? What would be next? Ban certain codices?

Mon, banning is not cool at all. Formations are part of the game, and hella important part.

Banning all formations is using a sledgehammer to fix a loose screw.

 curran12 wrote:
Banning all formations is using a sledgehammer to fix a loose screw.

Added to my sig

My problem is more the formation bonuses than their content.

Its like the rule writers write the codex, then let Marketing make up whatever they think will sell models.

Bharring wrote:
My problem is more the formation bonuses than their content.

Its like the rule writers write the codex, then let Marketing make up whatever they think will sell models.

Thats the whole reason you run a formation, to get bonuses. If I run 3 librarians, they harness on 2+. They become a veritable Psychicstar if you put them in a squad of black templars and happened to be playing against a psyker heavy force. 4+ DtW? yes please

Formations should be balanced against each other, not broken.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Formations should be balanced against each other, not broken.

Agreed. My First Company Strikeforce formation is perfect for letting me represent a pseudo Deathwatch kill team on table allied to other Imperial armies. Without Formations, I then need to take either a squad of under equipped scouts/Tac Marines and an HQ, all costing points. Which then kills the incentive to take the formation in the first place.

As someone who plays Deathwing and Ravenwing, the idea of knocking out all Formations with no changes goes straight in the bin unless you bring back "X as Troops".

Even then, it seems like it'd be better to nerf or ban the broken stuff and leave the rest alone.

Though a blanket-ban on Decurion-style MFDs is probably not too bad an idea.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
As someone who plays Deathwing and Ravenwing, the idea of knocking out all Formations with no changes goes straight in the bin unless you bring back "X as Troops".

Even then, it seems like it'd be better to nerf or ban the broken stuff and leave the rest alone.

Though a blanket-ban on Decurion-style MFDs is probably not too bad an idea.

It kind of is a bad idea when many of those formations are the only thing letting those armies compete with Eldar who dont need formations to be powerful...

Then nerf the broken stuff.

I kind of think formations are fun. They let you play your army in new and interesting ways. Are some formations op? yes, but then again some armies are op as well and the only way other armies can compete is by using some op formation. Fixing said armies is a lot more difficult than it seems as well.. I would LOVE to have a better balanced game where all options are viable (in competative play), but that will never happen (would also love to have my army's uniqueness back instead of being reduced to another generic Ultra army, but that will never happen either).