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.

I had an interesting idea that Formations could be included into the Combined arms Detachment in the same way as Fortifications or Lord of War.
Specifically, in order to claim a list with Formations is "Battle-Forged" the formations must fit into one of these detachments:

CAD:
1-2 HQ
2-6 Troops
0-3 Elite
0-3 Fast
0-3 Heavy
0-1 Fortification
0-1 Lord of War
0-2 Formations - of the same Faction

Allied Detachment
1 HQ
1-2 Troops
0-3 Elite
0-1 Fast
0-1 Heavy
0-1 Formation - of the same Faction

Special Codex Detachments that include Formations (Decurion, Incustion, etc) are also a Battleforged way to include Formations

With this change, I would also make Formations lose their bonuses if taken "Unbound". this should dramatically reduce the appeal of Unbound as well.
Obviously this creates issues with the armies that cannot take CADs or Allied detachments (Harlies or Skitarii) but if you want Battle forged with them, you have to take their special codex detachments and be forced to focus on those armies, rather just add them 'willy-nilly' to whatever army you want.
Or at the very least, Errata an exception for just those 2 armies so that their Formations may be included in Battle Bro CADs only
Note that Assassins & Inquisitors have their own non-Formation Detachments and thus would not be affected by this change.

This is meant to limit Formation "abuse" and add an additional "tax" for using Formations that are of different Factions than your main army.
This is also in line with how the "Decurion/Warhost/etc" detachments are as it requires a "Core" before you can add the other Formations.

Let's look at some extreme examples:
Want to add a Riptide Wing to a Necron CAD? Currently you can just do that, but with this change, you would need to run a Tau Allied Detachment with at least 1 HQ & 1 Troop in order to keep it Battleforged.
This would also limit Warp Spider/Aspect Warrior Spam as you could only fit 2 Formations per CAD.
Imperial Superfriends lists would take a hit since you could no longer just add a Conclave without adding a CAD/Allied of the same faction in order to bring the Formation

For single Faction armies, this really doesn't change much, but it can penalized armies that take multiple Factions, at least by just a little.
It could also help bring us back to the days of needing HQs and Troops in our lists.

-

I think formations are the actual problem with 7th right now.Being given free bonuses. The excess of it in the form of decurion super formations. Every time people see a new codex and start throwing their hands in th air because of the opness it's less the units and more the formations.

This proposal doesn't really fix any of those problems. It just slaps a troops tax on playing a single army and a second tax on an allied one.

Hmm. I don't dislike your idea, Galef, but it feels like a bandaid rather than a cure. Ideally, formations should be balanced options that either offset unit weaknesses or allow a fluffy army to be played that doesn't really fit in a CAD (Deathwing, for instance).

So the problem is that many formations are just "free special rules" or "free force org slots" that don't really have any bonuses.

Your proposal would probably work fine as a band-aid solution, but it's not really an ideal fix. A couple ways to fix the real problem off the top of my head:

-Get rid of any formation that basically grants free special rules to already good units or allows good units to be taken without using up force org slots (with no additional drawbacks).

-Slap a points cost on a formation. An aspect host, for instance, isn't innately problematic because of the bonuses it gives. It' s just that it gives those bonuses for taking options you were probably going to take anyway. Charge, let's say, 60 points for the +1 BS and other benefits it grants, and you're essentially just paying for wargear. Which is fine.

Wyldhunt wrote:

So the problem is that many formations are just "free special rules" or "free force org slots" that don't really have any bonuses.

Your proposal would probably work fine as a band-aid solution, but it's not really an ideal fix. A couple ways to fix the real problem off the top of my head:

-Get rid of any formation that basically grants free special rules to already good units or allows good units to be taken without using up force org slots (with no additional drawbacks).

-Slap a points cost on a formation. An aspect host, for instance, isn't innately problematic because of the bonuses it gives. It' s just that it gives those bonuses for taking options you were probably going to take anyway. Charge, let's say, 60 points for the +1 BS and other benefits it grants, and you're essentially just paying for wargear. Which is fine.

While I agree that would "fix" most of the problems, it is a subjective solution. You and I can agree what Formations are "broken", but not everyone does.
I am always interesting in finding a "blanket" solution that covers all options equally. And a solution that can be done by updating the main rules, does not require cross referencing or reprinting codices.
Placing points costs on Formation can work, but would require constant cross referencing between Codex and BRB or Errata.

It seems to be agreed that Formations that have "tax" units are overall not bad. It's the ones like the Aspect Host and Riptide Wing that are the offenders because they do not require any "tax" units.
So why would this change not satisfy this issue?

How about this for any additional cost: Since this change counts a CAD with 1-2 Formations as 1 detachment, why not say that units take up their battlefield slot within the CAD.
For Example:

Eldar CAD:
Farseer
3x 3 Scatter bikes
WK
Aspect host with 3 Spider units

The 3 Spider units would take up all 3 Fast Attack slots, thereby preventing any more Spiders from being added. You could add another Aspect host, but it would need to be made of non-Fast Attack units. If you want to run more Spiders, you must take the Warhost, thus requiring more tax units and losing ObSec.

This would also mean that RIptide Wings would take up 3 Elite slots, making them ineligible to take within an Allied Detachment. You could still add them to your army if you have a different faction, but you will need to add them in a CAD requiring 2 Troops and an HQ, rather than the Allied 1 Troop & HQ.

Requiring Formations to be taken within CADs and take up slots within that CAD makes those "free" bonuses not as free.

-

Maybe. I feel like your solution would be workable and reasonable, but it isn't really a "fix," and it doesn't strike me as impressively elegant or effective. Which I don't mean as an insult! This would probably work fine but have its problems just like many of the other solutions I've seen for formation imbalance.

I'd file it away as a good solution, but I probably wouldn't bookmark it as my favorite solution. ^_^; It's good. It's fine. It would work. It wouldn't really be ideal any moreso than other solutions I've seen, and it would still require consensus and buy-in from an opponent. As would any homebrew suggestion, I suppose. I'm fine with it.

What appeal of Unbound? Any Unbound army can be easily beaten by a regular Bound detachment.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
What appeal of Unbound? Any Unbound army can be easily beaten by a regular Bound detachment.

I forgot to add that with this change, you would be limited to only 2 detachments. Ever. Unlimited detachments should NEVER have been part of "structured" list building.
If Formations are part of their "parent" detachment just like Decurion/Incursion/Warhost/Demi-Co, etc AND they take up "force org" slots in CAD, than spamming formations becomes difficult, but you can still take a few.
If you really want to spam certain Formations, you can't field them as CAD, you must field them use Decurion/Incursion/Warhost/Demi-Co, etc, which comes with more tax and doesn't have ObSec (except Gladius)

Again, I know there is a better way of balancing Formations (like adding points cost to them) but my solution is attempting to make this change via army structure. This is something that could be done in 8th ed without needing to update any existing codices or releasing Erratas for every army.
In an ideal 40K, you should only have to reference your Codex and the BRB. Restricting army composition is the easiest/simplest way to make this happen in 1 book.

-----------------------
I feel here is a good place to summarize my proposal, including the feedback you guys have graciously given.

BattleForged 40K can include up of 2 detachments of the following:
-Mulit-Formation/Auxiliary detachments listing in Codices. Each codex will be specific in how these are put together

-Codex specific detachments like GK Nemesis Strike Force, DE Realspace Raiders, Harliequin Masque, etc. these may also include 1 additional Formation as part of the detachment
-Combined arms and Allied Detachements, as current, but may include 1 Formation as part of the detachment.

As Formations are now "rolled" into a parent detachment, they no longer considered "detachments" and units within Formations will occupy the battlefield role slot of their parent detachment.
-Detachments, including any Foramtions must consist of the same Faction
-exception to this is Harliquins and Skitarii. As these armies ae limited to in there detachment selection, Formations form these armies my be taken in Battle Brother detachments.

-

Have you looked at 30ks foc and the restrictions used to play it? I recomend you do. It fixes a lot of this bs.

 Lance845 wrote:
Have you looked at 30ks foc and the restrictions used to play it? I recomend you do. It fixes a lot of this bs.

30k goes for detachment types over 'formations', which makes the whole thing much easier. I personally like it much better since it doesn't back you into a corner on exactly what you're taking in what quantity, and there aren't 'tax' units to balance the formation rules at the same level.

I agee on liking it much more. Rites of war do what formations try to do much better. They add new ways to deploy units and adjust armies for various play styles by giving you options instead of a set requirement. Much more flexible, fluffy, and fun.

I used to think that formations was a marketing gimmick to sell things that were nkt popular. Unfortunately the way I see things now with the current formations amd detachments, they just shove the new models down your throat more or less.

If GW realize which models and units were bad and had poor rules they could have bundled many of these garbage units and models together and write strong rules for them when taken in a detachment or formatio and give people a reason to buy these garbage models.

CSM Possessed and WarpTalons and terminators could of had a really good detachment with bonuses to deep striking warp talons and terminators within 3" of possesed squads. And also giving possesed bonuses to move farther and faster.

Powerful units dont need help from a formation bonus. Its the crappy units that need it.

 CadianGateTroll wrote:
I used to think that formations was a marketing gimmick to sell things that were nkt popular. Unfortunately the way I see things now with the current formations amd detachments, they just shove the new models down your throat more or less.

If GW realize which models and units were bad and had poor rules they could have bundled many of these garbage units and models together and write strong rules for them when taken in a detachment or formatio and give people a reason to buy these garbage models.

CSM Possessed and WarpTalons and terminators could of had a really good detachment with bonuses to deep striking warp talons and terminators within 3" of possesed squads. And also giving possesed bonuses to move farther and faster.

Powerful units dont need help from a formation bonus. Its the crappy units that need it.

I'd prefer to apply Heinlein's Law (never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence) and say that formations are a neat idea that weren't tested particularly well and ended up causing a lot of problems.