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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Strangely the amount of money (sales revenue) that GW make has been declining every year since formations were spooged into mainstream 40K.

Well that could also be attributed to many different factors, such as CSM, Orks, Nids, BA, ext not having decent codexes and most of the units being pretty much useless. And also people generally leaving the game or refusing to buy anything from them.

I can personally say that as soon at my 7th edition dex dropped, I spent way too much of my hard earned money on probably 2500+ points of Necron stuff.

Formations are Jarvis's wet dream come to life. He admits he doesn't adhere to rules nor point values (which are really part of the rules). If formations left, all the balance, alpha strike, and codex inequality problems still exist. The game would be just as bad.

The game seriously needs to be redone from the ground up. To eliminate as much unbalance as possible in such a complex game, eliminate the alpha striking ability, and fix codices so all can compete equally; again at least as close as possible for a complex game.

When formations first came out, I hated them.

Now I find they are a good way to balance 40k. If an army is really behind in the curve, GW can release a formation giving them an option to be competitive without releasing an entire new codex.

 labmouse42 wrote:
When formations first came out, I hated them.

Now I find they are a good way to balance 40k. If an army is really behind in the curve, GW can release a formation giving them an option to be competitive without releasing an entire new codex.

But that is not happening. It's the newest, most powerful codices getting the strongest formations. If anything, formations have widened the gap between older and newer codices, not the opposite.

This is true the gap has widened considerably and this shows in the many ITC tournament analysis. I wish we could get the ITC to start implementing homerules to bring all the factions to an even playing field.

 Gamgee wrote:
This is true the gap has widened considerably and this shows in the many ITC tournament analysis. I wish we could get the ITC to start implementing homerules to bring all the factions to an even playing field.

GW is not interested in a balanced game, or they are interested but cannot come up with a balanced rule set including all codices.

 Korinov wrote:
But that is not happening. It's the newest, most powerful codices getting the strongest formations. If anything, formations have widened the gap between older and newer codices, not the opposite.

Heh. Just because GW can do something right, does not mean they will do something right.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
I would be pissed. My Decurion is extremely fluffy and fun to play, and makes my Necrons feel more like, well...Necrons. It's easily half the reason I'm in love with the 7th edition codex.

The Decurion is great for Necron players. It makes the army much more resilient. Necrons would not be top tier without it.

Well it's not only that, but it's just the feel of the army. I was growing bored with the old CAD from my 5th edition codex. It just lacked flavor, imo.

Bigger problem is how GW seems to have preferred factions that seem to get a lot of interesting and strong rules while other factions get some lackluster gak. Compare the IG formations and its decurion to the Tau rules in the same campaign book. CSM is one of the main forces in the 40k universe and haven't gotten a good release in years. Dark Eldar had its codex released roughtly half a year before Craftworld Eldar and yet DE are bottom tier with tons of issues and nerfs while CW:E went from being the strongest codex to being even stronger. Space Wolves got an update that seemed to give new options and breathed some life into non thunder wolf tactics while the Orks get an update to their supplement with some of the more uninspired rules and lazy copy paste ever (the WAAAGH-Band and the Ghazzcurion rules are basically the same with the detachment rules making the core formation rules entirely redundant).

Formations aren't the problem so much as they highlight the problems with GW's rules writing in general. Remove formations and faction detachments will leave 40k with the same hot garbage rules and balance issues. At least formations in general offer some variety in playstyle.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
If formations left, all the balance, alpha strike, and codex inequality problems still exist. The game would be just as bad.

No not at all. While it would not fix 40k it forcing players to pay for their advantages would definitely get rid of some horrible stuff we are facing now.
It isn't the formations that are to blame it is the bonuses. If players want to field tons of marines in tons of rhino's or if they wanted to use tons of aspect warriors sure use the formation.
It is the bonuses that break the game they need to be paid for or removed from the game.

Things it would fix.
- Necrons not dying.
- 3 point space marines.
- Dirt cheap BS 5 eldar
- Lots of tau shenanigans.
- 2+ casting
- Ravenwing re roll cover shenanigans

etc.

Just look at the current top armies. They all abuse formations to the max. Cut that out and the gap between the armies becomes smaller.

Bigger problem is how GW seems to have preferred factions that seem to get a lot of interesting and strong rules while other factions get some lackluster gak.

I think this is a pure money-making issue. Some factions sell better than others.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Bigger problem is how GW seems to have preferred factions that seem to get a lot of interesting and strong rules while other factions get some lackluster gak.

I think this is a pure money-making issue. Some factions sell better than others.

Sorta self fulfilling prophecy then to make uninspired rules that don't encourage model sales for armies that aren't selling well due to bad rules. Lots of people like CSM, Orks, Guard, Nids but they cut back on buying new stuff or playing the faction when they get mopped off the board by the strong armies. The 7th edition Necron release is a prime example of how you would see tomb blades and lychguard sitting on shelves never being bought and then the new dex dropped and suddenly they are selling like crazy. Tankbustas for Orks where considered a joke and at best something you would pull out against Nids because they didn't have any vehicles for glory hog to auto target. The 7th edition Ork dex lands and suddenly Tankbustas are all over the tables (a lot of them kit bashed but still) because their rules became really good.

I think GW realizes that rules sell models but unfortunately there is still a lot of inconsistencies in how they write their rules and the effort they put into each faction. The rules department needs some new writers who can put in that effort and better project managers who can ensure the release of a quality product. Even if they don't care about balance, they should care about generating sales and pushing out phoned in rules that don't encourage sales is a determent to GW's bottom line and their consumer base.

What removing formations might do:

- Make Eldar even stronger

- Make Necrons more boring

- Removes the Tau codex update

- Removes the crutch that the lower tier codexes have been relying on

- Makes KDK so much weaker

- Punches harlequins into non existence (who the hell allies an entire masque for some harly flavor?)

- Skittari get hammered pretty much as well

- All marine armies become Gravbike clones


+ Removes 'free upgrade/unit' detachments

+ Makes SOB/most DE stronger

I play in a club that does not allow formations and it's not the utopia you believe it is.

Rules sell models. That's right.
But GW might see the rule sets and the codices/army books as (pure) service to the customers, since they are a miniature making company selling their products to collectors.

 Vankraken wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Bigger problem is how GW seems to have preferred factions that seem to get a lot of interesting and strong rules while other factions get some lackluster gak.

I think this is a pure money-making issue. Some factions sell better than others.

Sorta self fulfilling prophecy then to make uninspired rules that don't encourage model sales for armies that aren't selling well due to bad rules. Lots of people like CSM, Orks, Guard, Nids but they cut back on buying new stuff or playing the faction when they get mopped off the board by the strong armies. The 7th edition Necron release is a prime example of how you would see tomb blades and lychguard sitting on shelves never being bought and then the new dex dropped and suddenly they are selling like crazy. Tankbustas for Orks where considered a joke and at best something you would pull out against Nids because they didn't have any vehicles for glory hog to auto target. The 7th edition Ork dex lands and suddenly Tankbustas are all over the tables (a lot of them kit bashed but still) because their rules became really good.

I think GW realizes that rules sell models but unfortunately there is still a lot of inconsistencies in how they write their rules and the effort they put into each faction. The rules department needs some new writers who can put in that effort and better project managers who can ensure the release of a quality product. Even if they don't care about balance, they should care about generating sales and pushing out phoned in rules that don't encourage sales is a determent to GW's bottom line and their consumer base.

I agree with this whole heartedly. GW does things like giving SM and the like free transports (which sells models, so that makes sense), but then gives Chaos and Daemons free rules like Fear and "meh at best" special rules requiring you to take a detachment of 6-9+ units of basic troops and the like. Sure, that'll make Daemons players wanna buy more models, right? Oh wait...no, no it won't.

 Torus wrote:
What removing formations might do:
...
- Removes the crutch that the lower tier codexes have been relying on
...

Top lists in Las vegas open 2016.
Alex-Harrison-1st: spammed Aspect Host formation.
Sean Nayden 2nd: Aspect Host formation + Corpsethief Claw formation
Steve Sisk 3rd: Gladius strike force
4th daemons
Alex Fennell 5th: Necron decurion
Brad Chester 6th: Aspect host
Jon Camacho 7th: Decurion
8th wolf + dark angels

Most of the nastiness in those lists comes from formations, and non of my ork or your harlequin formation bonuses come even close to the free upgrades they provide.
If you removed the bonuses from these formations it would close the gab not widen it. There is no way any suboptimal lower tier formation can compete vs 3 point marines, necron reanimation buffs or eldar troopers always hitting on a 2+.

I think the concept of formations is OK, but the execution is horrible.

Minor rewards for taking fluffy combinations? Boosts for getting sub-par units to the table? New ways to get theme armies? Sure. Sounds fine.

Major advantages? “Tax” units that aren’t, but get boosts anyway? Free stuff? Nope.

Formations like the skyhammer, which while utilizing sub-par units has a list of special rules that reads like a fanboy’s wet dream fan-fic, are not good for the game. Major advantage, with minimal drawbacks. Same thing with the aspect host. Free WS/BS, for taking 3 squads of things you don’t mind taking otherwise? Again, major advantage with no real restrictions.

But then there are formations like the suppression force. A LS and 2+ WWs. If the speeders spots for the WWs, they get to re-roll to hit and get infinite range. Flavorful, minor boost for a fluffy combo, and gives a nice boost to WWs which normally play second fiddle to TFCs.

If they want to keep powerful formations, there needs to be some cons to balance the pros. This can either be with “tax” units or restrictions, or just a point surcharge. But there should be something. TANSTAAFL.

if you want to see some contrast to the current formations. Just take a look at the way old appoc formations where made. And remember this was for HUGE games (appoc) not for usage in normal games.

It would make the game feel more like 40k again and not the apocalypse abomination it is now. It wouldn't fix all of the problems but would be a good step in the right direction. Formations only added more unbalance to a already unbalanced game.

If they were removed I would try playing again with my friends.

I would be OK with it. My play SW, Daemons and R&H, so my armies just recently got formations. R&H don't have any formations, but they have 2 detachments that are pretty cool.

The daemon formations are kind of hit or miss for me right now. I see them as fluffy more than competitive, and I havent had a chance to use the SW ones yet, so it wouldn't change much for me.

It would make my Skitarii unplayable as they don't have an HQ, lol.

I think formations are good for the game. A lot of units get play that never would get play if not for the formations. Plus - you don't need to run formations to make a broken list. You can do that with allies alone. Formations keep the allies shenanigans in check. Some of the bonuses could be fixed though. I also think all formations should have some units in it you don't want to take - for example the eldar gardian warhost - its a good strong formation. It requires you to bring 30 guardians though....there is it's balancing factor.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think formations are good for the game. A lot of units get play that never would get play if not for the formations. Plus - you don't need to run formations to make a broken list. You can do that with allies alone. Formations keep the allies shenanigans in check. Some of the bonuses could be fixed though. I also think all formations should have some units in it you don't want to take - for example the eldar gardian warhost - its a good strong formation. It requires you to bring 30 guardians though....there is it's balancing factor.

This. a thousand times this.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think formations are good for the game. A lot of units get play that never would get play if not for the formations. Plus - you don't need to run formations to make a broken list. You can do that with allies alone. Formations keep the allies shenanigans in check. Some of the bonuses could be fixed though. I also think all formations should have some units in it you don't want to take - for example the eldar gardian warhost - its a good strong formation. It requires you to bring 30 guardians though....there is it's balancing factor.

This. a thousand times this.

Thats the truth

So, my problem with 40k is that I want it to be a competitive game and it's not. The formations are only part of that problem, but realistically I think if GW wants to drive sales then they need to focus more on the game.

There really isn't a quick fix, because how do you tell someone they can't use their toys that they've already paid a ton of money for? I've slowly grown to "like" 7th edition, but only because I've accepted the fact that it's now Apocalypse and should only be taken as a beer and pretzel game and nothing more. This is also why I really like the Maelstrom missions, because you can completely win or lose the game based on a card draw or a die roll and despite your best tactics and the amount of cash you've spent on models.

If I were to wake up tomorrow and GW had created 8th edition 40k, this is what I hope it would look like: You would get the basic rules that went through the phases (and cleaned up or removed the psychic phase) but when it came time to build your army list there would be 3 options: The first would be a Tournament Build option which could be for armies of 1500-2000 points with all armies using one Combined Arms Detachment with no Forge World, no Fortifications, no Lords of War and all flyers would be a 0-1 option total. Basically, this is the classic style of one codex build vs another. Then you would have the Casual Build option that would be closer to the ITC rules and allow up to 3 detachments, but also allow Forge World, Fortifications, and Lords of War choices. The last option would be the Unbound option which would still use the detachment structure, but also allow formations and such.

I just think GW has really become a victim of their own creation and I can see where new players looking to get into the hobby are completely blown away by everything out there.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Rules sell models. That's right.
But GW might see the rule sets and the codices/army books as (pure) service to the customers, since they are a miniature making company selling their products to collectors.

A lot of this has to do with the developers behind the scene. If no one at GW is passionate about the armies then they languish. For example Phil Kelly loves Eldar, is passionate about them and so they get buffed and get a strong book.

My guess one of the reasons Orks or Chaos Space Marines suck is because no in the Studio really cares or understands those armies.

It's easy to be in love with formations and think they're fluffy when they provide hilariously powerful bonuses that make winning many games a predetermined outcome

But lets be real, formations' as they exist now, don't promote any sort of fluffiness, they're power crutches to move more product, and if the bonuses were removed (but the detachment structure remained the same) most people talking about the fluff aspect would drop their formations like a hot rock. Every Necron army Ive seen for the lsst year is running a Decurion, and pretty much exclusively because of the power it provides, even if they had to leave some of their previously favorite units out, it's just way easier and more powerful to run the Decurion. Likewise, therea not really much fluffy about an aspect shrine...you just take the Aspect Warriors you were already gonna take anyway and get BS5 for free.

For all the talk of how formations boost weak units, you arent seeing people running formations full of garbage units

The game needs a fundamental reboot and complete rebuilding, though dropping formations would be a very good start.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's easy to be in love with formations and think they're fluffy when they provide hilariously powerful bonuses that make winning many games a predetermined outcome with stuff you kargely already had on hand.

But lets be real, formations' as they exist now, don't promote any sort of fluffiness, they're power crutches to move more product, and if the bonuses were removed (but the detachment structure remained the same) most people talking about the fluff aspect would drop their formations like a hot rock.

For all the talk of how formations boost weak units, you arent seeing people running formations full of garbage units

The game needs a fundamental reboot and complete rebuilding, though dropping formations would be a very good start.

I disagree. I actually run a Living Tomb or an Annihilation Nexus, also a Royal Court with Imotekh at the head of my army. I've also played around with the idea of running all of the formations, but just not in a Decurion (since technically you could just run all of the formations, but you wouldn't have the option of Auxiliary Units like Flayed Ones), simply to lower the power of my army.

I also plan on running a rather full Guardian Warhost coupled with a Windrider Warhost with a ton of Warlocks and Shuricatapults on all my bikes, backed up by some nightspinner squads. That's a whole lot of "garbage" units, but it's fluffy and I plan on enjoying it.

If they removed formation bonuses, but made them essentially the new "CAD", I'd still be happy. But if they go back to "Okay, which HQ do I want, and which two minimum troops am I gonna take with this army?", then I'll be sorely disappointed.

krodarklorr wrote: That's a whole lot of "garbage" units, but it's fluffy and I plan on enjoying it.

Decurion + imothek+court + annihilation barges or those eldar shenanigans all in formations that buff them some more do not seem to be that garbagy if you ask me.
Sure you can enjoy it, but those builds are still quite potent.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's easy to be in love with formations and think they're fluffy when they provide hilariously powerful bonuses that make winning many games a predetermined outcome

But lets be real, formations' as they exist now, don't promote any sort of fluffiness, they're power crutches to move more product, and if the bonuses were removed (but the detachment structure remained the same) most people talking about the fluff aspect would drop their formations like a hot rock. Every Necron army Ive seen for the lsst year is running a Decurion, and pretty much exclusively because of the power it provides, even if they had to leave some of their previously favorite units out, it's just way easier and more powerful to run the Decurion. Likewise, therea not really much fluffy about an aspect shrine...you just take the Aspect Warriors you were already gonna take anyway and get BS5 for free.

For all the talk of how formations boost weak units, you arent seeing people running formations full of garbage units

The game needs a fundamental reboot and complete rebuilding, though dropping formations would be a very good start.

So that explains why I'm building an Annihilation Nexus . . .

Don't presume to know why others play what they do. I like the Necron units long before I started playing the game. I bought Necrons without knowing they were a top 5 army. When I discovered how well they perform on the tabletop, that was just gravy. I would play them even if they were in the same shape as CSM and SoB are in. I don't play them because they are powerful. I play them because I like them.

I play in an extremely casual meta. Hell, I waive my Decurion +1 RP if my opponent is complaining about it (and that rarely happens because again, my meta is about having FUN). I'm sorry if yours is so cutthroat that you can't enjoy yourself. The issue isn't the game. Yes, it's horribly imbalanced. That doesn't mean it can't still be fun.