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.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

If they start gradually adding faction-specific formations thery would be just going the same route as 7th only starting the same thing again from scratch, even though they had a huge base of content to work with. How much sense does that make?

It makes sense if the base content doesn't mesh well with the new stats. The Fluff will definitely remain but the effects will more than likely be different.

But you can literally take any existing formation and completely change it's rules. Why not just do that?

Complexity, lack of tax units making for poor balance and a pay-to-win mentality creeping into the game, and generally there is nothing formations do that can't be done better through an FOC and unique army rules.

Face it, formations may have added flavor but they ruined balance and the best solution to fix them was to outright remove them and restrict detachments to just being FOCs.

error

I also quite like Flyers being their own battlefield role. Wondering if they are going to evolve how Flyers play in the game.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
I also quite like Flyers being their own battlefield role. Wondering if they are going to evolve how Flyers play in the game.

My hope is that they basically keep their current rules though change the flat 6 to a modifier to hit.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:


Tone down the buffs? Limit it to specific units anyway? Apply debuffs to other unit's stats? Limit the upgrades or increase the cost and make them mandatory? Those are just the ones that I came up off the top of my head in just a couple of minutes - there are a ton of ways to fix even the most outrageous stuff without gutting the whole thin.

And we come back to the question, why do we need Formations for any of these?

Adding in debuffs and the like just adds more complexity and yet another thing to balance, and will feed further minmaxing.

Everything else can either be done (and done more appropriately) at the unit level, or just isn't worth the effort of keeping, rebalancing, and updating the old formations given that units (and thus the formations they exist within) may be updated fairly frequently.

There just is noo good reason for formations from a game design standpoint for any of this. Formations make sense as a short term method to boost sales with overpowered rules. Aside from that, everything they do can be done at the unit level or through FOC swaps and the like without the extra added layer of complexity.

I would have to disagree. Formations alter units stats and/or special rules, thus allowing you to use the same unit in a different to normal way. It's not harder to balance than adding a completely new unit to the game which GW frequently does. Also doing things only on the unit level gives you less balancing tools because the only things you can alter is points (through wargear and so on) and unit size itself.
Yeah, rebalancing all of the formations at once is hard. But so is changing every single unit in the game. That didn't stop GW.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
I also quite like Flyers being their own battlefield role. Wondering if they are going to evolve how Flyers play in the game.

Based on what they've said, we know that Flyers will have the same stat line as any other model, but will usually have a minimum move requirement on their datasheet. They'll probably also have some sort of negative modifier to hit for enemies targeting them and rules saying they can't get into combat. Although, it would be thematic and awesome to allow for a kamikaze dive bomb. I could see Grots doing this. "Perform a charge. If successful, make a single melee attack at S10, dealing 2D6 DMG. Afterwards, regardless of whether or not the attack hit, remove this model as a casualty."

 kronk wrote:

Spoiler:

skarsol wrote:

 davou wrote:

skarsol wrote:
Hurm...

"If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions."

I wait eagerly to see how they're going to make a generic Battle Forged layout that lets me replicate what the Infernal Tetrad allows (ie: 5 Demon Princes in 1850).

That seems to be possible using JUST whats been spoiled today, did you look?

Based on the examples, to get 5 HQ it would require 6 troops choices, 3 elite, 3 fast attack, and 3 heavy support. That's not going to fit in 1850 unless point values are all kinds of crazy.

Assuming the same points, and that you can take multiple detachments:



2 HQ +1 troop
2 HQ + 1 troop
1 HQ + 1 troop

Possible.

You just don't get any command benefits. Or your old formation benefits.

Ah, yes. I'm dumb and didn't consider taking multiple copies for some weird reason. :( Thanks for the heads up.

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

If they start gradually adding faction-specific formations thery would be just going the same route as 7th only starting the same thing again from scratch, even though they had a huge base of content to work with. How much sense does that make?

It makes sense if the base content doesn't mesh well with the new stats. The Fluff will definitely remain but the effects will more than likely be different.

But you can literally take any existing formation and completely change it's rules. Why not just do that?

Who says they wont do that for some of them. why do you need everything back exactly the same way as before.

That is like absolutely not the point I was making.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

If they start gradually adding faction-specific formations thery would be just going the same route as 7th only starting the same thing again from scratch, even though they had a huge base of content to work with. How much sense does that make?

It makes sense if the base content doesn't mesh well with the new stats. The Fluff will definitely remain but the effects will more than likely be different.

But you can literally take any existing formation and completely change it's rules. Why not just do that?

Who says they wont do that for some of them. why do you need everything back exactly the same way as before.

That is like absolutely not the point I was making.

What is the point you are trying to make?

what is it that you want?

Edit: NVM. Reading is FUNdamental.

That is still largely true in the new Warhammer 40,000, but with a few changes.

The biggest of which is… wait for it…<puff of smoke>

Formations are gone.

skarsol wrote:


Ah, yes. I'm dumb and didn't consider taking multiple copies for some weird reason. :( Thanks for the heads up.

Well this is assuming you can take multiple copies

no idea if multi detachments will be a thing or how they will interact if they can be taken multiple times.

skarsol wrote:


Ah, yes. I'm dumb and didn't consider taking multiple copies for some weird reason. :( Thanks for the heads up.

That's IF you can take more than one. I bet an internet $ they do! We'll see.

Edit: There is this line in today's announcement:

"Matched play actually has a few extra rules too, designed for competitive events, which organisers can choose to use when setting the rules for Battle-forged armies – limits on the number of separate Detachments is one example."

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/05/new-warhammer-40000-battle-forged-armiesgw-homepage-post-4/

 Desubot wrote:
what is it that you want?

Free bonuses. Note how he doesn't even try to deny that or how he conveniently skips over that he can(likely) still use exact same formations just without free rules.

 Desubot wrote:

skarsol wrote:


Ah, yes. I'm dumb and didn't consider taking multiple copies for some weird reason. :( Thanks for the heads up.

Well this is assuming you can take multiple copies

no idea if multi detachments will be a thing or how they will interact if they can be taken multiple times.

I'd say multiple detachments are a thing...

"Matched play actually has a few extra rules too, designed for competitive events, which organisers can choose to use when setting the rules for Battle-forged armies – limits on the number of separate Detachments is one example."

Saying that there are limits on the number of separate Detachments sure makes it sound like you can take multiple Detachments normally.

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

If they start gradually adding faction-specific formations thery would be just going the same route as 7th only starting the same thing again from scratch, even though they had a huge base of content to work with. How much sense does that make?

It makes sense if the base content doesn't mesh well with the new stats. The Fluff will definitely remain but the effects will more than likely be different.

But you can literally take any existing formation and completely change it's rules. Why not just do that?

Who says they wont do that for some of them. why do you need everything back exactly the same way as before.

That is like absolutely not the point I was making.

What is the point you are trying to make?

what is it that you want?

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

thats only on the assumption that 7th was an ok game.

7th is an absolute dumpster fire of a game.

tneva82 wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
But you can literally take any existing formation and completely change it's rules. Why not just do that?

Well basically they did it. They just changed free bonuses as no bonuses. So guess you really are just after free bonus rules.

Yeah I'm not getting this "they should balance formations instead of just removing them" line - that's exactly what they did, by merging them with the FoC concept and generalising them so everybody could use them, sans ridiculous free stuff bonanza rules. They're hardly forcing us back to the OG 3rd Edition FoC. Indeed if, as expected, the remaining 10-12 FoCs have a much more specific focus to allow for theme lists, the new system will provide more variety because you won't be required to tie your theme list to a specific army.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

Broken formations were a ruined system that needed to die a quick death. IMHO, YMMV, OMG, BBQ, WTF.

Yeah it seems like you're mad for the sake of being mad LP.

I think it's better from a strictly bookkeeping perspective.

Less funky rules to manage, memorize, and keep track of.

Someone in my group plays Ad Mech, and he utilized the hell out of his formations.

I didn't mind, but I was definitely taking his word on all of the rules and buffs, because let's be honest, I don't have the time to memorize that stuff.

I think a game that makes you take someone's word on the rules because it's too time consuming to learn yourself is inherently flawed.

I would think you are not limited by the book on the number of detachments you can take. As it would be limiting out allies if you couldn't take multiple detachments.

What I am curious is how low on the KEYWORDs are you allowed to go when building an army. For Example:

Keywords: Imperium, Adeptus Astartes, Grey Knights, Psychic brotherhood, Strike Squad

Keywords: Imperium, Adeptus Astartes, Hero, Psycher, Librarian

Are we allowed to take a Librarian from the Space marine chapters as a HQ choice and a squad from the Grey Knights as a troop choice. Then say a couple Tactical squads from the space marines to have a Battalion formation of 1HQ + 3 Troop.

As all 4 are Imperium. Technically all 4 are Adeptus Astartes.

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

thats only on the assumption that 7th was an ok game.

7th is an absolute dumpster fire of a game.

You are changing the subject, this argument was never about 7th edition as a whole.

tneva82 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
what is it that you want?

Free bonuses. Note how he doesn't even try to deny that or how he conveniently skips over that he can(likely) still use exact same formations just without free rules.

He wants GW to continue formations but "fix" them. Instead GW said 'here's how we're going to fix them, *poof* their gone!'
Liberal_Perturabo doesn't like that. A lot of us do sooooooo.....

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

thats only on the assumption that 7th was an ok game.

7th is an absolute dumpster fire of a game.

You are changing the subject, this argument was never about 7th edition as a whole.

We are talking about formations

a thing made for 7th. and again even if the specific formations that you want may be gone. there is no indication that all formations are gone. its going to probably be called something diffrent and maybe even cost points or have more restrictions but as of right now we dont know.

 kronk wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

Broken formations were a ruined system that needed to die a quick death. IMHO, YMMV, OMG, BBQ, WTF.

Ok.
So following your logic GW should have removed all wulfen, riptides, wraithknigts and so on because they were also aroken and needed to die?

tneva82 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
what is it that you want?

Free bonuses. Note how he doesn't even try to deny that or how he conveniently skips over that he can(likely) still use exact same formations just without free rules.

Yup. The free bonuses were loved by those who benefited the most and loathed by everyone else.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

Sounds like an arguement in favor of removing formations to me. Formations weren't something the game needed, and they're something that got a lot of negative press because of how utterly broken those free rules made some armies.

I'm willing to bet there will be ways to run most of those formations, but without the rules they had. Which is fine. If those bonuses go away in favor of a more balanced game I'm not only in favor of it but insist on it. But then again I played Sisters who had 0 formations outside of Apoc, and recently started Templars whose only unique way to run their Crusader Squads in an army for bonuses (outside of Apoc) was an FOC released as a part of the Gathering Storm books.

Neither of my armies gained anything unique to them via formations so I have no romance for them. So tearing off this band-aid and taking that crutch away is fine by me.

 Yodhrin wrote:
the new system will provide more variety because you won't be required to tie your theme list to a specific army.

Yeah no more "you can build all bike list but IF you take white scars" which is wrong in so many levels it's not funny. Apart from white scars not being all bikes(tacticals are actually core of white scars...) other chapters can utilize heavy bike armies and in scale of 40k all bike salamanders and iron hands is just as feasible!

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:


Tone down the buffs? Limit it to specific units anyway? Apply debuffs to other unit's stats? Limit the upgrades or increase the cost and make them mandatory? Those are just the ones that I came up off the top of my head in just a couple of minutes - there are a ton of ways to fix even the most outrageous stuff without gutting the whole thin.

And we come back to the question, why do we need Formations for any of these?

Adding in debuffs and the like just adds more complexity and yet another thing to balance, and will feed further minmaxing.

Everything else can either be done (and done more appropriately) at the unit level, or just isn't worth the effort of keeping, rebalancing, and updating the old formations given that units (and thus the formations they exist within) may be updated fairly frequently.

There just is noo good reason for formations from a game design standpoint for any of this. Formations make sense as a short term method to boost sales with overpowered rules. Aside from that, everything they do can be done at the unit level or through FOC swaps and the like without the extra added layer of complexity.

I would have to disagree. Formations alter units stats and/or special rules, thus allowing you to use the same unit in a different to normal way.

why can this not be done at the unit level, where it can be both better controlled and put to use potentially anywhere the unit is used?

It's not harder to balance than adding a completely new unit to the game which GW frequently does.

you're adding an additional layer of complexity not just to one unit but potentially multiple units, often with either indeterminate unit count or size (making assigning any specific cost pointless), and adding complexity to army construction to boot. It is fundamentally and inherently more complex than adding a new unit.

so doing things only on the unit level gives you less balancing tools because the only things you can alter is points (through wargear and so on) and unit size itself.

You can alter stats or add abilities through wargear and options, plenty of places this holds true. Likewise, thats all most formations did anyway. Nothing new is added here with Formations except an additional layer of complexity.

What do formations add that either couldnt be done at the unit level or that isn't wide open to immediate abuse, while also not adding more complexity?

Yeah, rebalancing all of the formations at once is hard. But so is changing every single unit in the game. That didn't stop GW.

what benefit would putting all the effort into formations bring? They can do most of it at the unit level, and the rest largely is broken stuff that isnt loss to the game as a whole.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

Broken formations were a ruined system that needed to die a quick death. IMHO, YMMV, OMG, BBQ, WTF.

Ok.
So following your logic GW should have removed all wulfen, riptides, wraithknigts and so on because they were also aroken and needed to die?

What was it that you liked so much about formations?

The rules or the fluff? Both?

I'm not clear on that.

v0iddrgn wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
what is it that you want?

Free bonuses. Note how he doesn't even try to deny that or how he conveniently skips over that he can(likely) still use exact same formations just without free rules.

He wants GW to continue formations but "fix" them. Instead GW said 'here's how we're going to fix them, *poof* their gone!'
Liberal_Perturabo doesn't like that. A lot of us do sooooooo.....

And rather than gone it's more like they merged unit options into detachments and removed free bonuses. So really is he after unit combinations or free bonuses.

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

That its better to fix things that needed work rather than ruining the whole system for the sake of nothing in particular?

thats only on the assumption that 7th was an ok game.

7th is an absolute dumpster fire of a game.

You are changing the subject, this argument was never about 7th edition as a whole.

We are talking about formations

a thing made for 7th. and again even if the specific formations that you want may be gone. there is no indication that all formations are gone. its going to probably be called something diffrent and maybe even cost points or have more restrictions but as of right now we dont know.

Armor values are also a thing in 7th yet we are not talking about them right now.
I am basing my opinion on currently avaliable information and that is 14 FOCs which won't even cover all factions unless some are merged together. GW may add more in the future. However GW may also not. Anything else is speculation.