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.

Might want to add a third option of "My codex doesn't have one".

I only run my Necrons in a Decurion if the other person is running their army in a highly competitive formation a la Riptide Wing

I need a maybe option. My Space Wolves use a Deathwolves decurion most of the time because the army I use ends up being a decurion anyway because of what I use.
My Eldar sometimes use the Decurion but I usually find it too restrictive.
My other armies either can't use it or don't have one.

pm713 wrote:
I need a maybe option. My Space Wolves use a Deathwolves decurion most of the time because the army I use ends up being a decurion anyway because of what I use.
My Eldar sometimes use the Decurion but I usually find it too restrictive.
My other armies either can't use it or don't have one.

That's just "Yes, I play it often."

Considering its the fluffiest and most optimal way to use the Ad Mech codecs in conjunction with each other: Yes I use War Convocation quite often

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I need a maybe option. My Space Wolves use a Deathwolves decurion most of the time because the army I use ends up being a decurion anyway because of what I use.
My Eldar sometimes use the Decurion but I usually find it too restrictive.
My other armies either can't use it or don't have one.

That's just "Yes, I play it often."

No it's "If I play Space Wolves I'll probably play it but most of the time I'm not". Hardly sounds like a yes.

Never used one. No plans to, either.

These are much more useful in larger games, I play smaller games 1850 and down, so not very often.

Even KDK, which is a pretty easy one to run, I'm finding I like a CAD and 1-2 formations instead of it because of the obsec. (Like Charnal Cohort and a CAD full of cultists.)

For Daemons, it is REALLY pricey to run the incursion, blood letters, plague bearers, nurglings, etc just are not useful in those large amounts.

As a GK player, I play either NSF or CAD, neither of which are "super-formations".

SJ

For the armies of mine that have them, I dont run them, I largely seem them as crutches, or in some ways condoned cheating. Not a fan of them at all.

I use formations and detatchments but not the gladius/decurion styles. 2 reasons, my codex (SW) doesn't have one and 2 my list wouldn't fit into one easily (all termis).

I do, but it's because War Convocation is the only way to play Admech currently.

With my Marines/Chaos Marines I only do the CAD with formations sprinkled in, but with Necrons I only do Decurion because non Relentless/MTC Necrons don't make much sense.

I have been playing the hell out of a Lions Blade battle company. Using ITC rules in building and missions i havn't been shut out completely and any loses have been determined by a single point.

I wanted to (and got to once), but my friends never let me the last few games I played. Considering they could never handle a single Riptide I didn't think it wise to use my formations. They declared them cheese and more or less didn't want me to use them.

It didn't make a difference what they wanted anyways when your losing to Kroot, Vespid, and Heavy Rail Rifle Broadside spam you know your perhaps some of the worst players in existence.

The funny thing is if I was to finally be able to get to a big tournament I wouldn't even use them since the CAD is more efficient for Tau.

pm713 wrote:

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I need a maybe option. My Space Wolves use a Deathwolves decurion most of the time because the army I use ends up being a decurion anyway because of what I use.
My Eldar sometimes use the Decurion but I usually find it too restrictive.
My other armies either can't use it or don't have one.

That's just "Yes, I play it often."

No it's "If I play Space Wolves I'll probably play it but most of the time I'm not". Hardly sounds like a yes.

Then it's "No, I don't usually play it."

For my Dark Angels, I've run the Lion's Blade Strike Force before, but I don't have the right models to be able to run the double Demi-company version (mainly lacking enough transports). LBSF with only one Demi-company + Auxiliaries is very fun to play, but not all that competitive. For competitive games, I usually run a Ravenwing Strike Force.

For my Khorne Daemonkin, I love the Blood Host detachment. It's so much fun to play, and it isn't totally worthless as far as power level. The problem is, in my area we have an extremely competitive meta (we sent 2 teams to ATC this year and they did very well, especially considering our hometown is only 100k people), so to compete I'm having to rework my Daemonkin list to include allies (gonna try the Cyclopian Cabal next). In a less competitive meta, the Blood Host is viable. In my meta, not so much. Still fun and not too OP for casual play though.

For my Tau, I usually don't run the Hunter Contingent or the Dawn Blade. I like those detachments, but I feel like I can be more competitive with a Farsight CAD, Optimized Stealth Cadre, and Drone Net. I might give the HC another go, but I lack the models to run a competitive Dawn Blade.

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I need a maybe option. My Space Wolves use a Deathwolves decurion most of the time because the army I use ends up being a decurion anyway because of what I use.
My Eldar sometimes use the Decurion but I usually find it too restrictive.
My other armies either can't use it or don't have one.

That's just "Yes, I play it often."

No it's "If I play Space Wolves I'll probably play it but most of the time I'm not". Hardly sounds like a yes.

Then it's "No, I don't usually play it."

Which isn't on the poll.
The poll is yes or no. Neither works hence a maybe option.

pm713 wrote:

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I need a maybe option. My Space Wolves use a Deathwolves decurion most of the time because the army I use ends up being a decurion anyway because of what I use.
My Eldar sometimes use the Decurion but I usually find it too restrictive.
My other armies either can't use it or don't have one.

That's just "Yes, I play it often."

No it's "If I play Space Wolves I'll probably play it but most of the time I'm not". Hardly sounds like a yes.

Then it's "No, I don't usually play it."

Which isn't on the poll.
The poll is yes or no. Neither works hence a maybe option.

Also most decently-accurate polls need a category for people who just choose not to answer or don't have an opinion.

Though now that I think about it for 2 seconds, that doesn't apply here at all.

pm713 wrote:
The poll is yes or no. Neither works hence a maybe option.

It's "yes" or "no" to whether you mainly use it or not. No "maybe" option is necessary.

So, simply, if the armies you use most often are nearly always built with a decurion-style list, then you'd answer "yes".
If the armies you use most often are nearly never built with decurion-style lists, then you'd answer "no".

(Example: If you play 10 games with a Space Marine Gladius, but 50 games with non-decurion style lists for other factions, you'd answer "no". If you play 40 games with a Space Marine Gladius, but 20 games with non-decurion style lists for other factions, you'd answer "yes".)

 Yarium wrote:

pm713 wrote:
The poll is yes or no. Neither works hence a maybe option.

It's "yes" or "no" to whether you mainly use it or not. No "maybe" option is necessary.

So, simply, if the armies you use most often are nearly always built with a decurion-style list, then you'd answer "yes".
If the armies you use most often are nearly never built with decurion-style lists, then you'd answer "no".

(Example: If you play 10 games with a Space Marine Gladius, but 50 games with non-decurion style lists for other factions, you'd answer "no". If you play 40 games with a Space Marine Gladius, but 20 games with non-decurion style lists for other factions, you'd answer "yes".)

And if you play an unlikely exact split 50/50, then just don't answer the poll. It's for people that play either less or more Decurion-style than non-Decurion-style.

 Purifier wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

pm713 wrote:
The poll is yes or no. Neither works hence a maybe option.

It's "yes" or "no" to whether you mainly use it or not. No "maybe" option is necessary.

So, simply, if the armies you use most often are nearly always built with a decurion-style list, then you'd answer "yes".
If the armies you use most often are nearly never built with decurion-style lists, then you'd answer "no".

(Example: If you play 10 games with a Space Marine Gladius, but 50 games with non-decurion style lists for other factions, you'd answer "no". If you play 40 games with a Space Marine Gladius, but 20 games with non-decurion style lists for other factions, you'd answer "yes".)

And if you play an unlikely exact split 50/50, then just don't answer the poll. It's for people that play either less or more Decurion-style than non-Decurion-style.

What about people whose army doesn't have one of those formations, but if it did they'd play the crap out of it?

What do they vote?

For me it depends on the army. For Deamons, yes from now on probably. For Eldar, nope, CAD is still better

I don't play Marines, but if I did, it would be Gladuis for sure.
Same goes for Necrons

 Pouncey wrote:
What about people whose army doesn't have one of those formations, but if it did they'd play the crap out of it?

What do they vote?

Well, "they" aren't playing any. So it should be fairly self explanatory.

Do you drive to work?
"I don't have a car, but I would if I had one."
So that's a no then. You don't drive to work.

 Purifier wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
What about people whose army doesn't have one of those formations, but if it did they'd play the crap out of it?

What do they vote?

Well, "they" aren't playing any. So it should be fairly self explanatory.

Do you drive to work?
"I don't have a car, but I would if I had one."
So that's a no then. You don't drive to work.

Okay then.

I have to go re-read the OP then, because I don't know what the poll is trying to show then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, so the OP is trying to figure out how many people adopted these formations even though everyone hated them.

So people whose armies don't have one should either abstain from the poll altogether, or vote yes/no based on whether they would use them.

Because it's about what people decided to use, and you can't make a decision if you don't have any options to begin with.

For the intent, yes. You're right. But that's not the question posed. It simply states "do you or do you not use them."

 Purifier wrote:
For the intent, yes. You're right. But that's not the question posed. It simply states "do you or do you not use them."

Though I dither on both sides of this, I would rather answer the question that's intended than the one that was technically asked.

Especially when it comes to providing statistical information and I know what was intended.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
For the intent, yes. You're right. But that's not the question posed. It simply states "do you or do you not use them."

Though I dither on both sides of this, I would rather answer the question that's intended than the one that was technically asked.

Especially when it comes to providing statistical information and I know what was intended.

Yes, but that's where it fails. You can't do that, as most people won't even read his post. Just his topic/question. So many wil answer it the "wrong" way, and then your data will mismatch theirs.

 Purifier wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
For the intent, yes. You're right. But that's not the question posed. It simply states "do you or do you not use them."

Though I dither on both sides of this, I would rather answer the question that's intended than the one that was technically asked.

Especially when it comes to providing statistical information and I know what was intended.

Yes, but that's where it fails. You can't do that, as most people won't even read his post. Just his topic/question. So many wil answer it the "wrong" way, and then your data will mismatch theirs.

And hence the poll is already giving inaccurate data for what it's supposed to be showing.

So... the poll's already borked.

 Pouncey wrote:
What about people whose army doesn't have one of those formations, but if it did they'd play the crap out of it?

What do they vote?

"No."

Personally, I think the author should have included the option "My army does not have the option," because otherwise it heavily skews the data with potentially useless info, but the logical answer is clear.