40k New Edition Summary - 14th June 17: Lord Duncan paints Primaris in Gravis/non-codex SM focus

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.

**ClockworkZion**

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?

Removing ways to play models to gain unfair bonuses is not the same as a balance issue with the unit itself.

Besides, one removes a way to field the unit, while you claim that it's the same as removing the models themselves. Not the same thing, this is a false equivalency you're trying to make to justify the keeping of a part of the game that was literally only used as a way to sell models to players who played to win at all costs.

Good riddance to a marketing gimmick disguised as gameplay.

**tneva82**

Nah Man Pichu wrote:
What was it that you liked so much about formations?

The rules or the fluff? Both?

I'm not clear on that.

You aren't? Isn't it clear? Free rules since ability to take same unit combinations isn't enough for him. Since it's not "I can't use my army anymore" it must be "I lost all the free bonuses!"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
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.

Why you want all FOC's to cover all factions? Does all factions need same renamed FOC? Why eldars can't use same heavy support FOC as SM?

Oh right that means less free bonus rules.

**Breng77**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:

The blame should go on GW for creating the mess, not fixing it. A clean break had to happen.

As I said, if they are capable of complete unit rebalance, what stoppes them from complete formation rebalance except the reasons I've pointed out?

quote]

The issue is that it adds a layer of balance that might make some things only "good in x formation" instead of good standing alone. Unless they points cost formations to "buy special rules" and do it correctly you always end up with problems like I mentioned. For instance if I balance a Riptide in context of having the rules on its data sheet, but then if I take 3 Riptides, they all ignore cover, re-roll armor saves, and wounds at no additional cost, then they are no longer balanced. Trying to shoe horn in "tax" units doesn't work either because that works off the basis that those units themselves are underpowered or not balanced. So could they have spent the time to come up with formations with special rules for a particular point cost (buy the riptide wing formation for 500 points to get the above), I suppose, but at that point why? I'd rather see an edition with multiple FOC options, and units balanced on their own merit not in instances when you take them in a particular formation. Similarly if a Rhino is balanced at its points cost, then a formation giving out free rhinos cannot be balanced. It sounds like they will be going the detachment route and command points will be the only benefits granted by specific detachments. This is much easier to balance.

**Desubot**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
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.

So we are making an argument based on speculation. and from the base knowledge we have if its only 14 FOCs and all formations are gone then imho im fine with it as it added a nothing of real value outside of potential abuse and gaming of the system. exactly what happened in 7th.

if it was only for the fluff aspect then people still should be able to do that. if it was just for the bonuses then sucks to be them.

**Youn**

Why are you bothering to argue about 7th edition formations. That obviously isn't how they are doing it in 8th edition. They have refined their method of doing formations to give a bonus of Command points. Command points are a bonus given for building certain type armies.

They are designed to give you something during the game that isn't as strong as say Soul Burst. They are also designed that everyone can get them and use them not just the Eldar.

Now, in the command point section, we still don't actually know how powerful those will be as we have been told they can change the game, but we haven't seen a single example of what they are yet. We know we can use 1 per phase.

Since, it gives power to every army equally. It is exactly what you would call balanced.

As to the question about Harlequins. I am pretty sure they will break your troupes into a couple heroes plus a 10 man troupe.

Just because Solitaire, Death Jester and Shadowseer are normally part of a troupe doesn't mean they cannot go back to being Independent characters.

**gungo**

His problem seems to be lack of rules such as hey here is your army that consists of 2 assault squads and 2 devastator squads and 2 drop pods that you can still take as a space Marine army but it sucks compared to the skyhammer it use to be. And he wants skyhammer even if it was never balanced.

This way is much more simple and equal however I doubt we can all make the same army we use to and not have some of them suck on the playing field. I might be able to put 100orks on the battlefield and call it greentide but it would likely be 1 dimensional and Lot easier for my opponent to control. 8th is literally a different game and in 7th certain formation rules made your army playable I think gw is disengenuos to say your army will be fine. Even if you can field exery varient they all likely won't be good armies.

**kronk**

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?

That would not be a good following of my logic, so no.

AFTER you nuke formations, and having nuked all existing codecies, you may now properly assign point costs to Wolfen, Riptides, Wraithknights, Scatterlaster Jet Bikes, and so on. Riptides will still be strong, but they should cost more and eat into your supporting units.

I'm looking forward to it.

**v0iddrgn**

tneva82 wrote:
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.

It's more than that really because if you'll notice, the Detachments/FOC's are only mandatory X number of unit type choices e.g. Elites, Fast Attack, etc... Whereas formations on the other hand mandated or cherry picked specific units e.g. Destroyers, Meganobz, etc... thus the free bonuses that cam from formations we're incentivizing players to buy specific models. The new detachments are much more open to various units in order to gain those Command Point bonuses. Much better for the game!

**Earth127**

I hope imperium isn't one faction. More like blood angels, astra militarum etc.

They have said they were going to limit allies via keywords so who knows.

**Alpharius**

RULE #1 and RULE #2 are taking a beating in here - and it needs to stop.

Immediately.

**ClockworkZion**

kronk wrote:
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?

That would not be a good following of my logic, so no.

AFTER you nuke formations, and having nuked all existing codecies, you may now properly assign point costs to Wolfen, Riptides, Wraithknights, Scatterlaster Jet Bikes, and so on. Riptides will still be strong, but they should cost more and eat into your supporting units.

I'm looking forward to it.

A-freaking-men. Stripping all the crap out of the game and taking just the units and building up from there should go a long way to giving us balance finally.

**v0iddrgn**

gungo wrote:
His problem seems to be lack of rules such as hey here is your army that consists of 2 assault squads and 2 devastator squads and 2 drop pods that you can still take as a space Marine army but it sucks compared to the skyhammer it use to be. And he wants skyhammer even if it was never balanced.

That just rewards laziness on the players part instead of having them find the synergy between units by themselves.

**ClockworkZion**

Earth127 wrote:
I hope imperium isn't one faction. More like blood angels, astra militarum etc.

They have said they were going to limit allies via keywords so who knows.

Imperium will probably be the general keyword for Humanity's non-traitor forces. Which mirrors AoS with factions like "Order" and "Destruction". It works at a high level by allowing you to mix an army together without needing alternate FOCs but restricts you by not sharing rules between the different sub-factions in the army. Which is great for balance.

**Liberal_Perturabo**

Vaktathi wrote:

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?

Because it ultimately will come to difference in points and rarely unit size. Sure, you can alter stats and special rules with wargear but you still have to pay for that. Formations can be balanced out by other means.

Vaktathi wrote:

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, exactly like adding a character that confers certaint rules to his unit/in an aure/your whole army. Which is definitely not uncommon in 40k.

Vaktathi wrote:

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?

Any system is wide open for immediate abuse if balanced poorly, nothing on a unit level is an exception.

**EnTyme**

Nah Man Pichu wrote:
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.

Why is that a binary choice? Why do formation bonuses have to be free? Why can't points be used to balance the bonus rules an army gets for taking a specific selection of units that represent how one (fluffy) aspect of an army works together? I keep seeing how formations killed variety, but I see the opposite. FREE formations were a bad idea. Costed formations give the player another option for how to build their army. You give up one bonus (extra command points in 8th) in exchange for some extra rules for your army (which you should pay for like you do in AoS). I except that this is the direction GW has gone for 8th, and it's damn sure not a deal breaker for me, but it doesn't mean I have to be happy with losing one of my favorite aspects of army creation in 7th edition and AoS.

**tneva82**

Youn wrote:
Just because Solitaire, Death Jester and Shadowseer are normally part of a troupe doesn't mean they cannot go back to being Independent characters.

Umm pretty sure they are. They just don't have HQ which prevented them using CAD and forced to use either faction specific detachment or formation.

But so far we have seen 3 detachments. 11 unseen. Doubtful all of them require HQ.

**Liberal_Perturabo**

kronk wrote:
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?

That would not be a good following of my logic, so no.

AFTER you nuke formations, and having nuked all existing codecies, you may now properly assign point costs to Wolfen, Riptides, Wraithknights, Scatterlaster Jet Bikes, and so on. Riptides will still be strong, but they should cost more and eat into your supporting units.

I'm looking forward to it.

So we can fix broken units but for some reason we can't fix broken formations and units. Would you care to explain why?

**Ferrum_Sanguinis**

As someone who blames formations for turning 7e into the unsalvagable mess it became, all I can say is thank the Emprah.

**Youn**

I guess if you actually look at the wording of those formation and the website.

You choose a SIDE. Then select a FACTION.

So, Space Marine is a faction. Grey Knight is a faction on the side of the Imperium.

I am guessing your army can only consist of one Side and each detachment can only consist of 1 faction.

So,. Grey knights though they are are a type of Space Marine actually probably cannot be taken in the detachment belonging to Space Marines.

That is probably odd for Blood Angels not able to get equipment from the space marine section.

**Desubot**

tneva82 wrote:
Youn wrote:
Just because Solitaire, Death Jester and Shadowseer are normally part of a troupe doesn't mean they cannot go back to being Independent characters.

Umm pretty sure they are. They just don't have HQ which prevented them using CAD and forced to use either faction specific detachment or formation.

But so far we have seen 3 detachments. 11 unseen. Doubtful all of them require HQ.

also assuming any models will retain there original FOC slots.

**warboss**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
My whole argument is about them not bringing formations as is, but rather fixing them for 8th.

They are talking 14 and we've already seen 3 of them. There are more factions in 40k than this, so basically glorified FOCs, maybe one or two xenos/chaos/imperium specific. That's a huge downgrade from what was already in 40k and only needed, not gonna lie, sometimes significant improvements, but still.

You're entitled obviously to your opinion but I think the response to that is basically summed up by an English internet idiom that says "You can't polish a turd." There is an addition to it that I saw here on dakka that adds "but you can roll it in glitter!". Those two joking phrases sum up my opinion of the formation system and, judging from the responses here, I'm likely not the only one who thinks so. For us, the obviously greed based marketing ploy masquerading as a game mechanic requested by players is just so bad that it harms the brand and no amount of fixing it will help. YMMV obviously.

**daedalus**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

So we can fix broken units but for some reason we can't fix broken formations and units. Would you care to explain why?

It sounds like they did.

**GoatboyBeta**

Liking the sound of these new FOC so far. I assume there will be small, medium and large versions that are focused on FA, HS and Elites as well as a LOW and fortification based chart. Really interested to see how formation heavy/dependent armies like the Death watch are affected by these rules.

**Liberal_Perturabo**

Desubot wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
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.

So we are making an argument based on speculation. and from the base knowledge we have if its only 14 FOCs and all formations are gone then imho im fine with it as it added a nothing of real value outside of potential abuse and gaming of the system. exactly what happened in 7th.

if it was only for the fluff aspect then people still should be able to do that. if it was just for the bonuses then sucks to be them.

I keep hearing many speak of formations like all of them were broken OP cheese. Which is not true at all. Some were broken, some were fine, some were trash, just like units. But as a system they provided more tactical options since the allowed for a different playstyle without the need to buy different units.
Naturally the broken ones were abused. Just like any broken part of any system would. It still doesn't prove anything.

**Vaktathi**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:

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?

Because it ultimately will come to difference in points and rarely unit size. Sure, you can alter stats and special rules with wargear but you still have to pay for that.

yeah, thats why points exist, it's what they are there for, so you can get *some* sort of representation of the power level of an army. That's how things should be balanced. That's the entire purpose of having a points system.

Formations can be balanced out by other means.

Only by adding unnecessary complexity with dramatically more room for error as there's no gauge to measure anything by.

Vaktathi wrote:

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, exactly like adding a character that confers certaint rules to his unit/in an aure/your whole army. Which is definitely not uncommon in 40k

HQ's that give blanket army wide buffs often have been sore points for balance and complained about routinely, Vulkan in 5th for example. I'm not a huge fan of them and would prefer to not see them, but thats also a much smaller issue in general however, and they do at least have a specific role, place, and cost within the army list.

Aura abilities are one thing, they require tactics to properly utilize and can be removed by removing the character, who typically has to put themselves in danger. Thats fine.

Vaktathi wrote:

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?

Any system is wide open for immediate abuse if balanced poorly, nothing on a unit level is an exception.

while true, formations are just adding another layer that is open to such, and, more pointedly, this didnt answer my question

**gungo**

So question what about all those 1 off models gw sold for limited time in assuming no longer sold so no new rules.

And looks like sisters of battle finally get a real updated codex.

**ClockworkZion**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
So we can fix broken units but for some reason we can't fix broken formations and units. Would you care to explain why?

Because Formations were a broken combination of units, meaning twice the work for what? A marketing scheme that was lambasted by anyone who didn't fall for it?

Formations added NOTHING OF VALUE to the game. Anything they did for unit organization could be achieved through an Unbound list during 6th and 7th and even then it would have been MORE BALANCED as they wouldn't gain gakky rules to run all over their opponent's army's with.

Why not make formations cost points? Because you're adding more bookkeeping into a game that is trying to reduce it's initial complexity to play, not increase it. Likewise formations are a pointless increase in complexity that only benefited those with the biggest wallets.

There is no arguement in favor of formations that works. The ability to take certain units? We have FOURTEEN generic FOCs that will help with that, plus a generic FOC large enough to avoid needing multiple detachments for large games. We've been told we're getting army specific FOCs in the future as well. Lore and Flavor? Like we need GW's express permission to do such things with out army.

All formations brought to the game was extra paperwork, extra gak to keep track of, and a way for people with the most money to exploit the game.

Thank the God Emperor they're gone.

**Desubot**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

I keep hearing many speak of formations like all of them were broken OP cheese. Which is not true at all. Some were broken, some were fine, some were trash, just like units. But as a system they provided more tactical options since the allowed for a different playstyle without the need to buy different units.
Naturally the broken ones were abused. Just like any broken part of any system would. It still doesn't prove anything.

Dunno about your group but 99% of the time all i see is the people taking the same broken formations or not bothering at all

at one point adding more options for tactical play just opens up more potential for abuse. we are likely to see it with command points but less options are far easier to fix than a bunch of interconnected interactions.

**JimOnMars**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

I keep hearing many speak of formations like all of them were broken OP cheese. Which is not true at all. Some were broken, some were fine, some were trash, just like units. But as a system they provided more tactical options since the allowed for a different playstyle without the need to buy different units.
Naturally the broken ones were abused. Just like any broken part of any system would. It still doesn't prove anything.

That's not 40k.

GW forgot that in 7e. It's too bad you got to like the non-40k version of 40k. Perhaps a different game would suit you better.

**Deadshot**

I'm more interested in how Deathwatch will work now with Formations gone, as the formations was really the crux of their killteam design, but if they're getting new rules they might just get units of "5 Veterans + optional Terminatiors, Vanguard, Bikers, Librarians" instead