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.

Guys I should have been more clear. I'm allowing formations , just no bonuses from them. Also the pay to win power creep is sooo over the top that a lot of guys have said this type of format is refreshing. At our events you can actually attend , have a good time and a chance to win. All without the latest pay to win power creep.
Also the format is important , if you guys get a chance and check ours. I think it's pretty good.

 KhorneontheCobb wrote:
Not sure why you're a TO if you have such a problem with competetive play.

Could you perhaps support your assertion with evidence? Are people at the op's tournaments not competing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Haldir wrote:
the format is important

Agreed

I believe I was emphazing the difference between competitive play and buffoonery that a 10 yr. old could pull off. I went undefeated at the last FOW Nat's I played in , so I like to think I know a little about competitive gaming. I've also won local RTT and placed high in many others. This is not about my tournament pedigree , I'm noting this to illustrate I've been a TO and player at a lot of events,
This is not a rant agonizing or bemoaning competitive play. Rather trying to find a way to make the game somewhat balanced and fun in a competitive setting. Again I have all the models (painted and wysiwyg) to pull off pay to win creep meta with the best of them. But for me that is just silly and not a lot of fun. Hence why. I started running events . In 5th 40K was huge in our area , now it is an also ran that doesn't have anywhere near the participation and activity of War Machine. Maybe there is a reason for that....

formations offer interesting options, they offer new twists on army design that can make for unique army dynamics that you wouldnt otherwise see (unless your tau cause their boring as shirt anyway). the formations themselves are not the enemy its that just like units themselves no two formations are on the same level of balance and games workshop is on an ever rising road of who's got the most broken book with a current trend of "whoever's army gets updated last gets to be the most broken".

if you want to limit the number players can take i think thats fine and limit them to in-codex i think that also would be fine. so no skyhammer in dark angels because its codex marines, this also nerfs thunderdome variants that rely on the librarius conclave to mask its units with invisible

i thonk though ultimately you cant stop games workshop. their actively out to kill competitive 40k and each codex they have progressively smashed into conficts with rules writers for tournaments that have made said people either lower the bars for entry, remove the bars entirely, or add even more restrictions on army design to the point of ridiculous. and one day this will be you. games workshop is hell bent on "casualizing" 40k in a bid to make it compete with who they view as competition (videogames, but as wel all know you cant kill videogames with boardgames their two seperate demographics)

OP, I agree that RAW 7th edition is in a very poor state regarding balance. Ever since Necrons dropped, there has been a definite power creep in Warhammer 40k. I can understand wanting to just play casually with the standard CAD. But banning formations and/or alternate detachments does not solve the balance problems in 40k. If anything, it only makes them worse.

The primary issue with formations/Decurions/alternate detachments is that now all of them are created equal. Take the Necron codex, for example. You cannot tell me that the Canoptek Harvest and the Annihilation Nexus are on the same level of power. Why ban both of them? Look at the various Decuron-style detachments that have so far been released. You cannot tell me that the Tau Hunter Contingent, Necron Decurion, or Gladius Strike Force is on the same level of power at the Khone Daemonkin Slaughtercult or the Eldar Warhost. Why then eliminate all of them as options?

Banning formations and alternate detachments also royally shafts certain armies, makes some factions unplayable, and ends up making some armies even more powerful.

A short list of factions and armies already not at the top of the power curve that are now nerfed even further:
Orks (no Green Tide or Biker formations)
Blood Angels (no Baal Strike Force or Flesh Tearers Detachment)
Grey Knights (no Nemesis Strike Force)
Tyranids (no Shield or Baal formations)
Khorne Daemonkin (no Slaughtercult)
Harlequins (unplayable)
DE Haemonculus Covens (unplayable)
Assassins (unplayable)
Militarum Tempestas (unplayable)
Inquisition (unplayable)
Imperial Knights (unplayable)
Skitarii (unplayable)

In the meantime Space Wolves just became Codex: Thunderwolves again, Spece Marines still have GravCents, Dark Angels have 2+ re-rollable cover saves, Tau can still spam Riptides or FW variants, and Eldar can take six units of Scatbikers and slaughter absolutely everything. Balance has not been achieved.

I do not believe that formations are "pay to win" (except for Skyhammer, but there are enough torrents of that around to render that moot). There have always been units in 40k that have been mathematically superior to others. Just because you can purchase and take those units to make a superior army does not make the game "pay to win" merely unbalanced. Formations work in much the same way; they give you incentives to take certain units. Thanks to formations people now have a reason to take Tac Marines, Stealth Suits, and Eldar Guardians. More often than not, these formations provide incentive to use units in a lore-friendly manner, which I feel is a positive aspect of the game. Problems arise only when certain already powerful units and armies get make overpowered via bonuses from formations.

The solution to the balance problems in 7th edition is not to ban formations. Instaed, I would argue for limiting formations and banning ones that are too powerful along with toning down certian offending units in the most powerful armies.

Those are good points , hence why the community should offer ideas and suggestions. In the end it's all about fun. The guys who attend my events have all been pretty positive and stated that they had a lot of fun. For my area and the events I organize I'm pretty happy with the way we do things. But it would be soooo awesome to have some sort of unified tournament system. ITC does some great work but I feel doesn't go far enough on a lot of things.

Few thoughts....
1: Allowing a 2nd CAD or battle brother allies only. No desperate allies , allies of convenience or CTA.
2: limiting Eldar jet bikes to 1 special weapon per 3 bikes.
3: Any game mechanic causing a 2+ should be a 2 up 4 up
4: Toning down the physic phase , it should add flavor to the game not dominate and overpower it.
5: Format -- see our events
6: No free vehicles and toning down summoning . Those are just kind of silly
7: No non character LOW or super heavies.

Again just a few suggestions....

Much support for getting rid of formation bonuses. If I was near you, I would absolutely come to events with that rule. (Our local events also have no formations allowed, and it feels so nice to be able to play some straight low-cheese armies even in a competitive context. It's nice to know that there is a ceiling. Some restrictions. A ward against the crazy, allowing random BA, orks, dark eldar, and guard to fight somewhat more evenly with vanilla marines, necrons, admech, etc.)

Ever since firebase support cadre came out, I've been saying formations are bad for balance. GW already can't balance units or codices. They DEFINITELY can't balance formation bonuses. Add to that that they're now using formations as a new "creative outlet" for buffing units: the new tau codex may as well be called codex: Tau formations. Jack-all got messed with other than giving them a decurion equivalent that, by itself, raises their power significantly from a CAD.

I mean, on one hand we have one that puts obsec on almost everything, free transports, and a set of free doctrines, and then competing against that is a set of 3 BA terminator squads that can run and shoot the turn they deep strike in. There's no comparison there.

I'd be all for formations if they were either remotely balanced against each other or if they cost something relevant...like points.

And yes I'm aware that Eldar's superior unit quality becomes uncontested top dog without formations, as their only real competition is from the other top armies using formation abuse.
Oh well. I would rather have one army be OP than 5 or more.

Down with formation bonuses!

Formations are a big part of why I stopped attending tournaments after playing an "1850" point game against a War Convocation getting to play with ~2400something points and extra free abilities and rules to boot.

In their original incarnation, where they had an actual points cost attached to the abilities they offered, they might have made sense.

However, at this point, the way GW has executed them is amongst the absolute worst examples of game design I could think of, and really scream "marketing gimmick", they're vehicles for moving web-bundles, especially when absurdly powerful formations like the Skyhammer Annihilation Force come from web-bundle exclusives.

Haldir I think the solution is what you did, fix things at a local level by knowing your group, taking on responsibility and applying common sense.

40k is so sprawling and incoherent both in terms of rules/units and player expectations, I don't know if a one-size-fits-all solution is even possible.

Haldir wrote:
I'm running tourneys that are seriously toned down , no fortifications , no,non character LOW .Guess what people like it! 4 events so far and all were well received. 5th is coming up and I only have 7 spots left. This means that if the community takes the bull by the horns we can tweak it to a game that can still be a lot of fun and tactical! We've also gone to one source with no allies. Feedback for this is 50/50 . A lot of guys like it and some are on the fence.

I approve this message!



Just be sure to check with your players regularly and let them decide how they want to play. If it's really 50/50, try and instigate some dialogue so a more definitive stance can be arrived at. Discussion is always a great thing unless you're surrounded by sociopaths. Maybe letting them express the positives and negatives can help persuade some folks to change their mind one way or the other. As a TO, it shouldn't be your burden to determine the rules, let the community decide that.

@niv-mizzet: There's one problem with Eldar being the only broken codex. Eldar are so broken that they would completely stomp any other army in a CAD-only format. The only reason that Eldar haven't been dominating every tournament since their release is because of house rules toning down the plethora of broken mechanics that they can exploit (i.e. ITC) and other armies able to exploit allies to make even more broken armies (i.e. thunderdome). The only thing banning formations and their benefits does is make certain armies even more powerful, and completely dominant in the case of Eldar.

As you pointed out, not all formations or formation benefits are equal. Why get rid of all of them at the same time? I'd argue for toning down the most overpowered formations until everything is at roughly the same level.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

I do not believe that formations are "pay to win" (except for Skyhammer, but there are enough torrents of that around to render that moot). There have always been units in 40k that have been mathematically superior to others. Just because you can purchase and take those units to make a superior army does not make the game "pay to win" merely unbalanced.

If a player has to buy individual units (as opposed to having access to all of them, as in Starcraft and such), and you have a situation wherein some units are vastly more effective than others (and this often changes with new editions, codices and releases), then surely the game is pay-to-win? Players with money can afford to follow the trends and/or buy new units to keep up with whatever is currently strongest, whilst players with less disposable income are stuck with whatever units they own.

Similarly, Formations give bonuses that require a number of specific units, and some even give a bonus of free units. If a player doesn't own all the requisite units for the formation, then he either has to buy them, or else can't access the bonus the formation offers. Or, if it offers free units, he'll be limited by how many of those units he can afford - so players who can afford to buy the maximum given will get more of a bonus than those who can't. To my mind, that's the definition of pay-to-win.

Harlequins are my primary army right now, I run the masque detachment, I have crushed the free vehicles company of space marines and pulled a draw with decurion necrons with each of us only having ~250 points of our 1500 point armies on the table at the end.

It is funny that the general consensus was tac marines, and rhinos were useless and objective secured doesn't mean anything. Then a formation came out that gave free rhinos to objective secured marines and suddenly the game has gone downhill.

Formations mean almost nothing for most armies. The issue is when a detachment allows for the exacerbation of point discrepancy between units that it becomes an actual problem. Every wraithknight gives you about 100 free points for your army, scatbikes punch and take punches above their weight also. When you take the warhost and give people the ease of access that it allows, their own problems become much more pronounced.

Again free vehicles , over the top formation bonuses , summoning. These things wreak of pay to win. But hey if people enjoy that and have fun that way , all the better. For me I`ve found a niche that our local community seems to enjoy. Also the comment about sprawl is soo true. I like the idea of our events where you can show up with a normal army not just the latest meta and have a chance to compete and most importantly have fun!!

 TheNewBlood wrote:
@niv-mizzet: There's one problem with Eldar being the only broken codex. Eldar are so broken that they would completely stomp any other army in a CAD-only format. The only reason that Eldar haven't been dominating every tournament since their release is because of house rules toning down the plethora of broken mechanics that they can exploit (i.e. ITC) and other armies able to exploit allies to make even more broken armies (i.e. thunderdome). The only thing banning formations and their benefits does is make certain armies even more powerful, and completely dominant in the case of Eldar.

As you pointed out, not all formations or formation benefits are equal. Why get rid of all of them at the same time? I'd argue for toning down the most overpowered formations until everything is at roughly the same level.

I disagree. I know the eldar is the most broken single codex, but if they're the only one; people will hate-build against them more. Over a decade of magic tourney playing and judging has shown me that a single OP deck is actually in a bad spot. The meta will shift against it. However, 4-5 different OP decks that all have different counters you'd want to bring? They just have the others in their own tier to worry about. No one is going to optimize less to include some hate for build A when builds B C D and E will still steamroll them.

Also while I find eldar to have the best unit quality in the game, it's not insurmountable. In tourney practice, I have a winning record against our eldar guy (whom I asked to run the fiercest stuff he could, so typical scatbike spam/wraithknight/webway D scythes/warp spiders type list.)
I was using my Blood Angels "crazy 88" list. An obsec MSU spam list with 40 BA scouts, 2 tactical suicide flame pod squads, 3 meltacide Asm pod squads, 3 sets of 5 man-1fist jump DC, a couple libbies for required HQ's, and a culexus in a pod. Yes it's a hard fought battle against eldar, but it's definitely winnable. Core marines could probably do it better as well. This list wouldn't stand a chance against the likes of war convo or battle company though.

As for why I'd toss them all? Have you ever tried to get a few warhammer players to all agree on what is OP and what isn't? It doesn't work. There are always those people that shout that their army will be "useless" without their precious +1 RP or whatnot.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
As for why I'd toss them all? Have you ever tried to get a few warhammer players to all agree on what is OP and what isn't? It doesn't work.

Bingo, which is why you ban all or none for an event.

Allowing the formations but not the bonuses they offer (insane bonuses in some cases) seems like a good solution to me.

I'd have no issues with formations that merely applied some adjustments to the CAD system and other minor bonuses, like the Legion rules from Chaos 3.5 (Night Lords could take 4 fast attack units but only 1 heavy support, also they could include as many Raptors as they wanted, while they were 0-1 in any other situation). Legion rules didn't actually force players to take anything into their armies, unlike today's Formations. That's IMO the way to go: offer people the chance to customize their army lists by offering them minor advantages, instead of writing the army lists for them and making certain units mandatory.

People who have already paid to win won't likely enjoy the idea though.

Our events have drawn a good mix of players. More interested in tight competitive games than pay to win latest meta broken cheese.

Crablezworth wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
As for why I'd toss them all? Have you ever tried to get a few warhammer players to all agree on what is OP and what isn't? It doesn't work.

Bingo, which is why you ban all or none for an event.

But there's the problem: you are erasing not just specific problematic builds out of the game, but whole factions from the game. Last time I checked, Harlequins and Khone Daemonkin weren't exactly the problematic armies at the pinnacle of power.

niv-mizzet, you used the example of MTG as a means of proving that a healthy meta has several competitive top-tier decks. You extend that analogy to 40k by presenting a list that can beat Eldar..and is admittedly stomped by War Convocation or Gravstars. I'd argue that thanks to tournament rules there are about six top-tier lists in 40k at the moment: Gladius, Eldar tournament armies, War Convocation with BA drop pods, Centstars, Thunderdome, and Daemon Summoning. Out of all of these, only half (Thunderdome, Gladius and War Convocation) are build around formations. The rest simply abuse core mechanics that are fundamentally broken.

When you're trying to organize a tournament, you want as many people to participate as possible. This gives you a wider pool of players and greater diversity in armies, as well as more prize support from entry fees, leading to greater visibility and importance, which continues onward. If you ban formations, you eliminate several factions and army builds from even showing up to the table. You then have to ban Eldar, as Eldar are the most overpowered army without allies or formations being factored in . Not even niv-mizzet's army can stand up to them in this format, as even his list is not allowed in this format (Assassins are unplayable). After all is said and done, there's not a lot or armies that can still be there to participate in the tournament. The ITC's rulings and FAQ have always been set up to allow the greatest possible number of armies to be able to show up to tournaments and stand a chance at winning. It's telling that not only have the IIC not banned formations, they have actively embraced them as adding more diversity to the game.

Korinov wrote:Allowing the formations but not the bonuses they offer (insane bonuses in some cases) seems like a good solution to me.

I'd have no issues with formations that merely applied some adjustments to the CAD system and other minor bonuses, like the Legion rules from Chaos 3.5 (Night Lords could take 4 fast attack units but only 1 heavy support, also they could include as many Raptors as they wanted, while they were 0-1 in any other situation). Legion rules didn't actually force players to take anything into their armies, unlike today's Formations. That's IMO the way to go: offer people the chance to customize their army lists by offering them minor advantages, instead of writing the army lists for them and making certain units mandatory.

People who have already paid to win won't likely enjoy the idea though.

Quick question: how is Khorne Daemonkin even supposed to function without their benefits? If you interpret your suggestion strictly, even Objective Secured and Warlord Trait re-rolls are no longer valid as they are the bonus for taking a CAD.

Formations serve only to offer an incentive for players to use certain units. For example, in the 6th edition Eldar codex you only took three units of different Aspect Warriors if you wanted to reflect the lore and have fun, and I did. Now I take three units of different Aspect Warriors because I want to have fun and because I have a very strong incentive to do so. It's the same sort of principle as Legion rules for 3.5 edition CSM, only applied to specific units instead of broad categories of units. The problem arises when the incentives for taking certain units are definitively better than the incentive for taking other units. I'd say that instead of eliminating these incentives, certain ones should be revised and toned down for balance purposes.

People say that you can't get people to have a consensus in Warhammer 40k on what is broken and what needs fixing. This in not true; not only has is been done in the past, it is being done now. Look at the rules that yakface helped author for 5th edition or what's going on now with the ITC and NOVA. People can organize around shared interests to create a common base for the game.

Warhammer 40k is "pay to win" in the same way as Magic the Gathering. I can go out and copy a netlist made out of the most powerful single cards and synergies in the game, and there are decks out there that will stand absolutely no chance of beating me. But anyone who knows what they're doing can wipe the floor with me if they are sufficiently skilled with a proper deck and have the favor of the luck of the draw/heart of the cards. In the same way, I can show up to an ITC event with a Thunderdome list and will table most Ork or CSM armies through sheer list power alone. But if I play someone at niv-mizzet's level of skill, I will lose because he knows the game better than I do, no one has ever played a 100 percent correct round of 40k, and the dice gods are notoriously fickle.

Haldir wrote:Our events have drawn a good mix of players. More interested in tight competitive games than pay to win latest meta broken cheese.

Believe it or not, Haldir, I actually would enjoy attending one of your tournaments. I don't consider myself a hugely competitive player, and I enjoy playing in casual and fun games more than the pressure of performing during a tournament. You and your group seem like genuinely cool people, and I love to show up with a tame Eldar list and have some fun. I just don't think it would be to either the CSM player I inevitably stomp or the mono-Deathwing player who can't participate because his army is illegal.

Haldir wrote:
Again free vehicles , over the top formation bonuses , summoning. These things wreak of pay to win. But hey if people enjoy that and have fun that way , all the better. For me I`ve found a niche that our local community seems to enjoy. Also the comment about sprawl is soo true. I like the idea of our events where you can show up with a normal army not just the latest meta and have a chance to compete and most importantly have fun!!

*reek

I'm sorry, but this doesn't sound fun. If you want to do the work as a TO to restrict the cheese from the game, then do the whole job. I'm perfectly fine with formations like the Gladius or the Skyhammer having some or all their benefits amended or cut, but as a DE player, primarily Haemonculus Covens, the notion than my formation benefits are broken is laughable. If you want to make such blanket sweeping changes, just run 5th edition.

Cutting all formation benefits across the board doesn't create balance, it punishes everyone (especially Haemonculus Covens and Harlequins players) for a problem which affects a very small minority of formations. It reeks not of reducing cheese, but of forcing everyone to play the game the way the TO likes it, which is the worst thing a TO can do.

Uh..... No one is being forced to do anything.... 2 tournaments ago we had 20 and a sell out with a waiting list. My weekly sparring partner plays DE and has done really well with them both in the tournaments and weekly events. He hasn`t voiced ANY complaints about not having a chance. So its not me forcing people to play "my way" but rather a group that loves 40K and is tired of the pay to play meta cheeseeee. Also for the record I HAVE all the models to run any amount of douchbaggery and cheese. I CHOOSE not to do so. So I think your comment was waaay off. Perhaps you should also go to the format I designed that offers multiple ways to win and accrue points. Again as previously noted this is not me pontificating on 40K but rather offering the feedback from play testing. You see unlike GW I actually put in play testing the missions to make sure they are both fun and fair to everyone. You also forgot the most important part .... The people that come have funnnnn that is why they come back. So I really don`t get the whole "forcing" thing. But hey if you and your group enjoy playing your way , that`s great for you. But for myself and the "forced" attendees we`re doing just fine....
Formations kind of "reek" (thank you) of I want to win -- I want to win. As for the worst thing a TO can do.... I organize and do a lot of the terrain and the networking , my partner does the actual TO work and judging. He loves 40K but doesn't play anymore because of the broken rules... For me I would much rather play than TO. Guess what I`m playing AM , I have much stronger armies but I want to play them and have fun. In all honesty how can you even take some of these formations seriously?? Like a buddy of mine now always says (who is a multiple GT winner btw) 40K .... Any 10 yr. old with the right toys can win.

If you want to make such blanket sweeping changes, just run 5th edition. ---- I would so love to!!!

but of forcing everyone to play the game the way the TO likes it, which is the worst thing a TO can do. -- 4 events and no one has walked away mad or complained they`re not coming back. Maybe you should ask the actual attendees before making those statements.

In all honesty how can you even take some of these formations seriously??

I don't know, maybe the fact that they exist? If my army doesn't have any formations, then why should I be ok with you ever a small edge over me , when your probably already have a big one just because GW decide to make my faction suck.

Makumba wrote:

In all honesty how can you even take some of these formations seriously??

I don't know, maybe the fact that they exist? If my army doesn't have any formations, then why should I be ok with you ever a small edge over me , when your probably already have a big one just because GW decide to make my faction suck.

IG has formations you know. In fact the Steel Host is pretty good.

First off, whatever works for a person's local area is perfectly fine. The object is to have fun playing Warhammer 40K and if it works, great. GW gave us all the toys to play with and we can shape our game in such a way that we have fun with. No issues.

Second, formations being 'pay to play'. GW has ALWAYS been a pay to play concept. There have always been units/armies that are simply better than others, all the way back to the RT era. With the addition of formations, it is clearly a marketing technique for GW to get the consumer to buy more models. The concept is not new, but in how they are doing it is (IE: Formations). 6th edition is where we really saw very dramatic changes in how 40K was going to be played: Superheavies, Gargantuan Creatures, Fortifications, Allies and Formations. All of which are pay to play concepts. If your group doesn't like formations, nothing wrong with it. What you did do is put some snarky taglines associated with formations which simply is not productive. Again, if your local area does not like the use of formations, no issues. Thank you for sharing your experiences playing games with that type of restriction in place, just don't make snarky comments towards those who do no choose to play in the same manner as you choose to.

Ironically, I can make a list many players hate to face by not using Eldar Formations by sticking to the CAD FOC. Currently, I run a complete Craftworld Formation and it makes for a fun and challenging army for myself and my opponents. I've found folks are more to liking my army than if I place 2 Farseers on bike, 24 Scatterlaser Jetbikes, Revenant Titan, and Skyshield Landing Pad on the table in an 1850 point game.

Basically, it's not the game or additional rules that really hurt the game, the players and how they interact with one another is what hurts the game. Players in a given area need to come to a consensus as to what they believe is necessary to have a fun game. If that means getting rid of stuff such as Formations, again, no issues. Just be careful when painting with a very broad brush and demean others who play differently than you.

Can you tell us the name of your shop so the ones that choose to can actively avoid it?

 CrownAxe wrote:

Makumba wrote:

In all honesty how can you even take some of these formations seriously??

I don't know, maybe the fact that they exist? If my army doesn't have any formations, then why should I be ok with you ever a small edge over me , when your probably already have a big one just because GW decide to make my faction suck.

IG has formations you know. In fact the Steel Host is pretty good.

Let me guess, the formation is FW?

Basically, it's not the game or additional rules that really hurt the game, the players and how they interact with one another is what hurts the game.

Sure it is not the scater bikes, D weapons, superior units with or without formation, with or without FW , with or without ally that make it unfun to play versus something like eldar, but the interaction with the eldar player. That would maybe make sense if every eldar army would have to start with a foot autarch or avatar and 60 banshees, when playing non mirror games.

Steel Host IIRC was in one of the Campaigns (i.e. normal 40k, not Apocalypse).

 Sarigar wrote:
Second, formations being 'pay to play'. GW has ALWAYS been a pay to play concept. There have always been units/armies that are simply better than others, all the way back to the RT era.

'Things have always been bad therefore we should just accept they are bad and not try to change anything' is a terrible mindset to have for just about anything.

Nothing was meant to be snarky. Just noting that in my personal view there were a lot of things that to me are just broken and take the fun out of the game. I do believe I mentioned more than once that If formations work for you and you are having fun go with it. The purpose of the post was to get the ball rolling on possibly doing what ITC has done but taking it a little further . But 40K has dropped off huge here and there is a reason for it.....

Makumba wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Makumba wrote:

In all honesty how can you even take some of these formations seriously??

I don't know, maybe the fact that they exist? If my army doesn't have any formations, then why should I be ok with you ever a small edge over me , when your probably already have a big one just because GW decide to make my faction suck.

IG has formations you know. In fact the Steel Host is pretty good.

Let me guess, the formation is FW?

No. They're in GW The Red WAAAAGH campaign book (FW hasn't made any regular 40k formations yet).