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.

 oldzoggy wrote:

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.

Please enlighten me as to how many people ever take an Annihilation Nexus, or Imotekh.

Better yet, show me someone who plays Guardians.

Sure, if used right, they're not garbage, but they're so far under the most optimal units that most people don't look at them. Heck, no Eldar player in my group ever plays Guardians, or leaves home without a heavy weapon on their bikes.

 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.

I agree that formations could of been good if they would of been designed correctly but I really don't think a unit should be worth taking all because a formation gives them free stuff. People taking the minimum requirements to run a formation is really no different then people taking 2 minimum troops in a regular CAD. I rather play against allies then formations due the fact that I can expect 1500 vs 1500 points and not a 1500 vs 1750 or what ever handicap.

 Kiggler 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.

I agree that formations could of been good if they would of been designed correctly but I really don't think a unit should be worth taking all because a formation gives them free stuff. People taking the minimum requirements to run a formation is really no different then people taking 2 minimum troops in a regular CAD. I rather play against allies then formations due the fact that I can expect 1500 vs 1500 points and not a 1500 vs 1750 or what ever handicap.

You act like every army is getting free points worth of stuff. Gladius (and supposedly one of the SW formations I've heard?) gives free transports. If someone takes a Guardian Warhost, they get free Heavy Weapons in their squads. That's about it. not every army is getting free units because of formations.

War convocation gets free upgrades.

Free stuff can equally apply to powerful bonuses that may well buff the army such that it feels it has more units. Having a buffed RP roll increases durability, making it the rough equivalent of bringing more bodies.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kiggler 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.

I agree that formations could of been good if they would of been designed correctly but I really don't think a unit should be worth taking all because a formation gives them free stuff. People taking the minimum requirements to run a formation is really no different then people taking 2 minimum troops in a regular CAD. I rather play against allies then formations due the fact that I can expect 1500 vs 1500 points and not a 1500 vs 1750 or what ever handicap.

You act like every army is getting free points worth of stuff. Gladius (and supposedly one of the SW formations I've heard?) gives free transports. If someone takes a Guardian Warhost, they get free Heavy Weapons in their squads. That's about it. not every army is getting free units because of formations.

That is because most formations give free stuff. Additional special rules is no different then free upgrades. How many points would it cost you to put a cryptek in each of your squads to get +1 rp.

Aspect Host of 30 Howling Banshees for me supported by an Avatar of Khaine and Jain Zarr. The entire force being led by an Autarch with the Shard of Anaris and Seer Council. Thats my eldar close combat list that reeks of fluff (that gets tonned down even further against some of the weaker dex's)

(this is on top of guardian battlehost but that may change with the new doom book)

 Kiggler wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kiggler 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.

I agree that formations could of been good if they would of been designed correctly but I really don't think a unit should be worth taking all because a formation gives them free stuff. People taking the minimum requirements to run a formation is really no different then people taking 2 minimum troops in a regular CAD. I rather play against allies then formations due the fact that I can expect 1500 vs 1500 points and not a 1500 vs 1750 or what ever handicap.

You act like every army is getting free points worth of stuff. Gladius (and supposedly one of the SW formations I've heard?) gives free transports. If someone takes a Guardian Warhost, they get free Heavy Weapons in their squads. That's about it. not every army is getting free units because of formations.

That is because most formations give free stuff. Additional special rules is no different then free upgrades. How many points would it cost you to put a cryptek in each of your squads to get +1 rp.

Eh, considering I'd save points on not bringing Immortals, or not bringing 2 squads of Warriors, or subbing my Overlord for a Cryptek, and not being required to take a Doomsday Ark if I want to take an A-barge, it wouldn't cost that much.

As much as people enjoy arguing it, there are restrictions to a lot of these formations, in that you're required to take certain stuff that (regardless if it's good or not) you might not want to take. Granted, I also know how ridiculous the Aspect Host is, which still baffles me as to why it's even a formation.

I wonder how many poeple who just play formationf for "fluff" would play them if they were approrpiately costed.

Formations are fine - they just need a cost to use them aAND that all armies have then not just the 7.5 edition Power dexes

Imotekh.is one of the most annoying necron HQ's allmost all necron players around here play him or leave him home due to hate.
There are some Guardian players around here they aren't crap at all even without the free heavy weapons these things will just mow down any infantry that dares to come close to it.

On top of that free reanimation protocols and free heavy weapons is just broken. You dont need to compare your list with the top list but what you are fielding is way above anything casual lower tier even can dream of fielding.

...then Eldar will be even more the top codex.

There's nothing wrong with formations, and the people whining need to get over it. Just a few of them need tweaking.

There's plenty wrong with formations, as has been explained in this thread several times.

As was also explained, removing formations wouldn't be a 100% fix, and near everyone has acknowledged there are underlying balance issues.

These same people also don't tell people to stop whining and get over it. They instead have a discussion about the issues surrounding them.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Imotekh.is one of the most annoying necron HQ's allmost all necron players around here play him or leave him home due to hate.
There are some Guardian players around here they aren't crap at all even without the free heavy weapons these things will just mow down any infantry that dares to come close to it.

On top of that free reanimation protocols and free heavy weapons is just broken. You dont need to compare your list with the top list but what you are fielding is way above anything lower tier even can dream of fielding.

Then that is certainly a first for me. I've had to argue with other people in the Necron Tactica thread about why I like Imotekh, as everyone I've talked to thinks he is sub-par at best.

And yeah, Guardians can mow down whatever. They also get mowed down easily. T3 with a 5+ is not fantastic.

And for the record, I have played a CAD a few times with my Necrons, and have still dominated using things like Anrakyr (nobody likes him either), A-barges, Transcendent C'tans, ext. So are you telling me that I'm just not allowed to play against lower tier armies at all?

Also, Eldar would shrug off not having formations. Their CAD builds are still the most potent, and everyone knows it. Getting rid of Formations wouldn't help that.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I wonder how many poeple who just play formationf for "fluff" would play them if they were approrpiately costed.

Formations are fine - they just need a cost to use them aAND that all armies have then not just the 7.5 edition Power dexes

Completely agree. My guess is none will use them. You should just watched how these "fluff formation" players switched to Greyknight/Necron/Eldar/Tau etc. in the past just because they liked the army.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kiggler wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kiggler 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.

I agree that formations could of been good if they would of been designed correctly but I really don't think a unit should be worth taking all because a formation gives them free stuff. People taking the minimum requirements to run a formation is really no different then people taking 2 minimum troops in a regular CAD. I rather play against allies then formations due the fact that I can expect 1500 vs 1500 points and not a 1500 vs 1750 or what ever handicap.

You act like every army is getting free points worth of stuff. Gladius (and supposedly one of the SW formations I've heard?) gives free transports. If someone takes a Guardian Warhost, they get free Heavy Weapons in their squads. That's about it. not every army is getting free units because of formations.

That is because most formations give free stuff. Additional special rules is no different then free upgrades. How many points would it cost you to put a cryptek in each of your squads to get +1 rp.

Eh, considering I'd save points on not bringing Immortals, or not bringing 2 squads of Warriors, or subbing my Overlord for a Cryptek, and not being required to take a Doomsday Ark if I want to take an A-barge, it wouldn't cost that much.

As much as people enjoy arguing it, there are restrictions to a lot of these formations, in that you're required to take certain stuff that (regardless if it's good or not) you might not want to take. Granted, I also know how ridiculous the Aspect Host is, which still baffles me as to why it's even a formation.

It's restriction is you have to 3 units of aspect. Granted this restriction is so minor...I can't imagine taking aspects without it because the detachment exists. The main thing it allows - I think is a good thing - is you don't have to take an additional CAD to take aspect warriors if you are running the war-host. +1 BS is too much - I would have been happy with some kind of focus fire special rule that gave them bonuses to shoot at the same targets. Still though - compared to a scatter bike - all aspect warriors are subpar so I think that was considered when writing the book.

Or how screamers just happened to be sold out by "I just happen to like them players" right around the time when the screamer star arrived.

Another Problem is it often rewards you for taking things you would have taken anyway there by making the CAD entirely redundant.

Take the Reclamation legion as an example. It requires me to take an Overlord, Three Troops, and a unit of Tomb blades. For that I get Relentless, Move Through Cover, and rerolls on 1 for RP if there near my Overlord.

Are the formations a bit restrictive, yes but the benefits are so out of whack compared to a CAD it's not even close and that's silly.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Another Problem is it often rewards you for taking things you would have taken anyway there by making the CAD entirely redundant.

Take the Reclamation legion as an example. It requires me to take an Overlord, Three Troops, and a unit of Tomb blades. For that I get Relentless, Move Through Cover, and rerolls on 1 for RP if there near my Overlord.

Are the formations a bit restrictive, yes but the benefits are so out of whack compared to a CAD it's not even close and that's silly.

I disagree. ObjSec is a thing, and has influenced quite a bit of games. And in competitions, you really don't want to leave home without some form of ObjSec.

Yeah lots of top lists do take a CAD just for objective sec jet bikes or other similar units on top of their buffed formations.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kiggler wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kiggler 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.

I agree that formations could of been good if they would of been designed correctly but I really don't think a unit should be worth taking all because a formation gives them free stuff. People taking the minimum requirements to run a formation is really no different then people taking 2 minimum troops in a regular CAD. I rather play against allies then formations due the fact that I can expect 1500 vs 1500 points and not a 1500 vs 1750 or what ever handicap.

You act like every army is getting free points worth of stuff. Gladius (and supposedly one of the SW formations I've heard?) gives free transports. If someone takes a Guardian Warhost, they get free Heavy Weapons in their squads. That's about it. not every army is getting free units because of formations.

That is because most formations give free stuff. Additional special rules is no different then free upgrades. How many points would it cost you to put a cryptek in each of your squads to get +1 rp.

Eh, considering I'd save points on not bringing Immortals, or not bringing 2 squads of Warriors, or subbing my Overlord for a Cryptek, and not being required to take a Doomsday Ark if I want to take an A-barge, it wouldn't cost that much.

As much as people enjoy arguing it, there are restrictions to a lot of these formations, in that you're required to take certain stuff that (regardless if it's good or not) you might not want to take. Granted, I also know how ridiculous the Aspect Host is, which still baffles me as to why it's even a formation.

Not sure you understood what I was trying to say. What you listed was not a formation and just a regular list in which case I would have no problem with it. Assuming the +1 rp upgrade would be 20 points if it was a choice you are already at 100 free points just filling out the decurion requirements.

The restriction on formations are mostly laughable. If they were not so bad then there wouldn't be so much debate around them.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 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.

In some ways you may have a point, but the problem with this is that you end up with the problem that the old FOC was there to prevent, in that you'll get people going to town on armies that overload on the formations that allow them to just spam the big guns or some other aspect with which to overwhelm an opponents ability to defeat, much moreso than with the old FOC.

Now, codex unique variations on the FOC I'm actually pretty ok with, like the GK one where they can DS turn 1 but have more limited slots to take stuff, but they still gotta take a "real" army of sorts.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...then Eldar will be even more the top codex.

There's nothing wrong with formations, and the people whining need to get over it. Just a few of them need tweaking.

ah...the classic unsupported "L2P" response that makes no attempt at refuting any opposing arguments.

 EnTyme wrote:

 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 dont believe i ever made any such claim to the contrary...only that the use of formations (not any specific army necessarily) was tied to power level.

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.

If the game is, by everyone's admission, horribly imbalanced, and you're choosing to change rules and reduce power level to make the game fun for an opponent...then the game is very definitely a problem.

Its not about a cut throat meta or not, Ive played games in three different states and six different cities since 7E came out, and my perceptions are gathered from that. It's great you have a nice casual meta where people do that, but when thats not available and pickup games or events are the primary ways to get games, that approach doesnt work.

 Kiggler wrote:

Not sure you understood what I was trying to say. What you listed was not a formation and just a regular list in which case I would have no problem with it. Assuming the +1 rp upgrade would be 20 points if it was a choice you are already at 100 free points just filling out the decurion requirements.

The restriction on formations are mostly laughable. If they were not so bad then there wouldn't be so much debate around them.

The point you were making is how expensive it would be to add Crypteks to units to get the +1 RP, as opposed to getting it for "free" with the Decurion. The point I was making is that if I wanted that benefit but had to rely on "paying for it" with Crypteks throughout my army, it wouldn't be that different of a cost, as I wouldn't be required to take the units for that detachment, and therefor saving points. In fact, I made a footcron list that had 2 Crypteks and Szeras in it, led by Anrakyr in a CAD, and it did really well, and was able to bring a lot of fun units I couldn't normally, easily bring in a Decurion.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In some ways you may have a point, but the problem with this is that you end up with the problem that the old FOC was there to prevent, in that you'll get people going to town on armies that overload on the formations that allow them to just spam the big guns or some other aspect with which to overwhelm an opponents ability to defeat, much moreso than with the old FOC.

Now, codex unique variations on the FOC I'm actually pretty ok with, like the GK one where they can DS turn 1 but have more limited slots to take stuff, but they still gotta take a "real" army of sorts.

Well sure, but people are acting like it's the end of the world that some (and I mean some. I'm looking at you, Aspect Host) allow for spamming with no restrictions at all. Lets say you remove that and heck, lets say you remove the CAD and go back to the good ole FoC. The problem would still arise from people spamming the powerful stuff.

Just because some formations (aka Aspect Host) allow for some ridiculous spamming, doesn't mean all formations are as bad as that. Heck, I don't have a problem with any of them minus the Aspect Host, as they all have some requirement or another. In fact, formations let some armies still do some cool stuff (Tyranids, for example).

We play no formations at our local small events, and our only local eldar player is a "cool old 40k guy" who has no interest in bringing powerful stuff, so he brings other armies generally.

It works great. Armies are imaginative and different. Games don't get bogged down because the models have 29 special rules that they don't normally have.

Seriously, the eldar guy handicapping himself and formations being barred makes it anyone's game. With a little luck, I can (and have) win our events with BA jump pack dudes for Emperor's sake. We've had non-coven dark eldar win, orks, chaos, IG, etc. right along with Tau and core marines. (Granted the tau guy isn't enough into the game to realize he could blow the thing wide open with more of certain units.)

Now they do some wonky stuff that's kind of weird like shooting down ALL lords of war, (not just super heavies,) but I'm willing to take that tradeoff just so I can stop playing against the same army over and over. (Oh look, necrons. I bet you have a rec legion, canoptek harvest or two depending on if you sprung for lychguard, and destroyer cult.)

TL;DR: Removing formations is a big improvement to the "metagame" as long as you gut punch the eldar codex at the same time. I wish the more broad tourney scene would've recognized what they would bring and kicked formations to the curb the instant they showed up.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
We play no formations at our local small events, and our only local eldar player is a "cool old 40k guy" who has no interest in bringing powerful stuff, so he brings other armies generally.

It works great. Armies are imaginative and different. Games don't get bogged down because the models have 29 special rules that they don't normally have.

Seriously, the eldar guy handicapping himself and formations being barred makes it anyone's game. With a little luck, I can (and have) win our events with BA jump pack dudes for Emperor's sake. We've had non-coven dark eldar win, orks, chaos, IG, etc. right along with Tau and core marines. (Granted the tau guy isn't enough into the game to realize he could blow the thing wide open with more of certain units.)

Now they do some wonky stuff that's kind of weird like shooting down ALL lords of war, (not just super heavies,) but I'm willing to take that tradeoff just so I can stop playing against the same army over and over. (Oh look, necrons. I bet you have a rec legion, canoptek harvest or two depending on if you sprung for lychguard, and destroyer cult.)

TL;DR: Removing formations is a big improvement to the "metagame" as long as you gut punch the eldar codex at the same time. I wish the more broad tourney scene would've recognized what they would bring and kicked formations to the curb the instant they showed up.

Yes, you don't have to play against the same army over and over again. And by that I mean "Oh look, more scatbikes. Oh look, still bringing lychguard and Wraiths. Oh hey Grav cents and Smashfether, didn't expect to see you again.". Your meta isn't the only thing to go off of. Also, banning formations is still going to merit the use of different units because they're still better than other options. As much fun as your meta sounds, that's the minority of players. My meta is pretty casual, but they all still use strong stuff. Our main Eldar player still loses to IG, non-Canoptek/Destroyer Necrons, and we also still have Tau players that aren't roflstomping everything.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
We play no formations at our local small events, and our only local eldar player is a "cool old 40k guy" who has no interest in bringing powerful stuff, so he brings other armies generally.

It works great. Armies are imaginative and different. Games don't get bogged down because the models have 29 special rules that they don't normally have.

Seriously, the eldar guy handicapping himself and formations being barred makes it anyone's game. With a little luck, I can (and have) win our events with BA jump pack dudes for Emperor's sake. We've had non-coven dark eldar win, orks, chaos, IG, etc. right along with Tau and core marines. (Granted the tau guy isn't enough into the game to realize he could blow the thing wide open with more of certain units.)

Now they do some wonky stuff that's kind of weird like shooting down ALL lords of war, (not just super heavies,) but I'm willing to take that tradeoff just so I can stop playing against the same army over and over. (Oh look, necrons. I bet you have a rec legion, canoptek harvest or two depending on if you sprung for lychguard, and destroyer cult.)

TL;DR: Removing formations is a big improvement to the "metagame" as long as you gut punch the eldar codex at the same time. I wish the more broad tourney scene would've recognized what they would bring and kicked formations to the curb the instant they showed up.

Yes, you don't have to play against the same army over and over again. And by that I mean "Oh look, more scatbikes. Oh look, still bringing lychguard and Wraiths. Oh hey Grav cents and Smashfether, didn't expect to see you again.". Your meta isn't the only thing to go off of. Also, banning formations is still going to merit the use of different units because they're still better than other options. As much fun as your meta sounds, that's the minority of players. My meta is pretty casual, but they all still use strong stuff. Our main Eldar player still loses to IG, non-Canoptek/Destroyer Necrons, and we also still have Tau players that aren't roflstomping everything.

No formations and not having the threat of 6x3 obsec scatbikes, a wraithknight, and tons of tau monstrous robots looming over your head frees up your list building for the meta more than you think. In the competitive scene right now, what you take generally has to pass the scatbike test, at the very least. "Can this unit deploy, get shot by scatbikes, and mitigate the damage efficiently, or have an alternate deployment like deep strike/outflank." Without them, it becomes a lot more common to see mediocre melee units, rhino chassis that are actually paid for, a lack of heavy grav because their big prey aren't around...

The point is that formations are probably the biggest single mechanic causing imbalance in the game right now, but the game would not be perfect without them. A little further adjustments to eldar, daemons, and monstrous robots, and suddenly it's a whole new ball game.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
We play no formations at our local small events, and our only local eldar player is a "cool old 40k guy" who has no interest in bringing powerful stuff, so he brings other armies generally.

It works great. Armies are imaginative and different. Games don't get bogged down because the models have 29 special rules that they don't normally have.

Seriously, the eldar guy handicapping himself and formations being barred makes it anyone's game. With a little luck, I can (and have) win our events with BA jump pack dudes for Emperor's sake. We've had non-coven dark eldar win, orks, chaos, IG, etc. right along with Tau and core marines. (Granted the tau guy isn't enough into the game to realize he could blow the thing wide open with more of certain units.)

Now they do some wonky stuff that's kind of weird like shooting down ALL lords of war, (not just super heavies,) but I'm willing to take that tradeoff just so I can stop playing against the same army over and over. (Oh look, necrons. I bet you have a rec legion, canoptek harvest or two depending on if you sprung for lychguard, and destroyer cult.)

TL;DR: Removing formations is a big improvement to the "metagame" as long as you gut punch the eldar codex at the same time. I wish the more broad tourney scene would've recognized what they would bring and kicked formations to the curb the instant they showed up.

Yes, you don't have to play against the same army over and over again. And by that I mean "Oh look, more scatbikes. Oh look, still bringing lychguard and Wraiths. Oh hey Grav cents and Smashfether, didn't expect to see you again.". Your meta isn't the only thing to go off of. Also, banning formations is still going to merit the use of different units because they're still better than other options. As much fun as your meta sounds, that's the minority of players. My meta is pretty casual, but they all still use strong stuff. Our main Eldar player still loses to IG, non-Canoptek/Destroyer Necrons, and we also still have Tau players that aren't roflstomping everything.

No formations and not having the threat of 6x3 obsec scatbikes, a wraithknight, and tons of tau monstrous robots looming over your head frees up your list building for the meta more than you think. In the competitive scene right now, what you take generally has to pass the scatbike test, at the very least. "Can this unit deploy, get shot by scatbikes, and mitigate the damage efficiently, or have an alternate deployment like deep strike/outflank." Without them, it becomes a lot more common to see mediocre melee units, rhino chassis that are actually paid for, a lack of heavy grav because their big prey aren't around...

The point is that formations are probably the biggest single mechanic causing imbalance in the game right now, but the game would not be perfect without them. A little further adjustments to eldar, daemons, and monstrous robots, and suddenly it's a whole new ball game.

So the players that like to play the fluffy Tyranid formations that make their Genestealers actually scary, or Ork players that want to play Greentide, or DE players that like Coven units all have to be punished as well?

 krodarklorr wrote:


So the players that like to play the fluffy Tyranid formations that make their Genestealers actually scary, or Ork players that want to play Greentide, or DE players that like Coven units all have to be punished as well?

They can all still play their fluffy armies. The standard CAD allows them to form legal lists around the units they want.

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


So the players that like to play the fluffy Tyranid formations that make their Genestealers actually scary, or Ork players that want to play Greentide, or DE players that like Coven units all have to be punished as well?

They can all still play their fluffy armies. The standard CAD allows them to form legal lists around the units they want.

All I'm saying is formations add different variations on play, whether people use it or not. If you and your gaming group doesn't want to use them, fine. most other people enjoy using them. Plus, there is still the issue of removing them still does not and will not fix the balance issues with 40k.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kiggler wrote:

Not sure you understood what I was trying to say. What you listed was not a formation and just a regular list in which case I would have no problem with it. Assuming the +1 rp upgrade would be 20 points if it was a choice you are already at 100 free points just filling out the decurion requirements.

The restriction on formations are mostly laughable. If they were not so bad then there wouldn't be so much debate around them.

The point you were making is how expensive it would be to add Crypteks to units to get the +1 RP, as opposed to getting it for "free" with the Decurion. The point I was making is that if I wanted that benefit but had to rely on "paying for it" with Crypteks throughout my army, it wouldn't be that different of a cost, as I wouldn't be required to take the units for that detachment, and therefor saving points. In fact, I made a footcron list that had 2 Crypteks and Szeras in it, led by Anrakyr in a CAD, and it did really well, and was able to bring a lot of fun units I couldn't normally, easily bring in a Decurion.

Still a major difference is that those characters can be killed removing the bonus and keeping some form of counter play. Besides +1 rp is not the only bonus decurion provides.

I hope if 8th edition comes out they instead they make two different game types. FOC chart only and the other being more of a free for all mode where all formations and detachments are allowed. Blizzards card game hearthstone is doing something similar where they removing the newer more powerful cards from ranked play.

 krodarklorr wrote:


All I'm saying is formations add different variations on play, whether people use it or not. If you and your gaming group doesn't want to use them, fine. most other people enjoy using them. Plus, there is still the issue of removing them still does not and will not fix the balance issues with 40k.

Removing them may not fix all the balance issues, but it'd certainly remove the balance issues caused by formations.

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


All I'm saying is formations add different variations on play, whether people use it or not. If you and your gaming group doesn't want to use them, fine. most other people enjoy using them. Plus, there is still the issue of removing them still does not and will not fix the balance issues with 40k.

Removing them may not fix all the balance issues, but it'd certainly remove the balance issues caused by formations.

Okay, so the Wraithknight is one bad example of GCs, which I think are not needed in regular games. So rather than fix the problem unit, you want to remove all GCs from the game?

Again, I'm not arguing that some of the formations are pretty ridiculous (Aspect Host). All I'm saying is don't punish everyone by removing formations as a whole. GW should just fix the few that are the problem.