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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.

Points are as vague system as any, since there is never a strict indication that X points = X strength for example. More than that points do flat increase or decrease in unit's power, while in a properly balanced formation you can stay on the same power level with increasing the unit's effectivness in one area and decreasing in in another - unit or army wide.

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

How are thay adding more complexity than, say wargear that does the same thing?

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.

What stops formations from having their special rules activated only in cpecific circumstances or by specific units in that formation thus allowing the enemy to counter it?

 Deadshot wrote:
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

I have a feeling it may become simpler in design, which would be good. Yes, it was instrumental to how they were built, but it was a lot of bookkeeping and I wasn't a fan to be honest.

 Desubot wrote:

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.

More anything is more options for abuse, units included. And we've got a huge amount of units in 40k, but people don't seem to see any problems in that.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.

Points are as vague system as any, since there is never a strict indication that X points = X strength for example. More than that points do flat increase or decrease in unit's power, while in a properly balanced formation you can stay on the same power level with increasing the unit's effectivness in one area and decreasing in in another - unit or army wide.

There wasn't before, that doesn't mean there can't be now. The game has been rebooted from the ground up with EVERY ARMY being worked on AT THE SAME TIME to ensure better balance. Points costs really do look like they'll be tied into actual strength going forward.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

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

How are thay adding more complexity than, say wargear that does the same thing?

Wargear costs points, formations don't. Seriously, stop comparing FREE UPGRADES TO UNITS to something that COSTS POINTS. It's a false equivalency fallacy. Just because both increase complexity in a game doesn't mean that both share the same root problems.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.

What stops formations from having their special rules activated only in cpecific circumstances or by specific units in that formation thus allowing the enemy to counter it?

Well, poor game design for one did just that.

Seriously though, any formation we have can fit inside of an army's FOC, or be played as unbound. What EXACTLY do they give the game other than broken rules? It sure isn't lore or fluff as we don't need datasheets just for some fluff.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

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.

More anything is more options for abuse, units included. And we've got a huge amount of units in 40k, but people don't seem to see any problems in that.

Why do you think they are starting from scratch and removing those options in the first place.

its less abuse than 7th (so far) which is a good thing.. and people DO have a problem with certain units in 40k which is also why are are redoing it from scratch rather than tweaking it. its why im absolutly over the moon that vehicles are on the T and save system. its easier to balance things that are all on the same system.

Look, far be it from me to tell anyone what to discuss and who to discuss with, but when a poster has, every day for a week, come online and assumed a contrary position to whatever the prevailing mood seems to be, and proceeded to make the discussion all about them (and the argument that basically boils down to "they shouldn't rewrite the rules, well, ok, they should rewrite rules, but in a different way that I like") then any time you spend wasting time arguing with them is all on you.

People, please. If you want to discuss this extensively and ad nauseam about formations, in 40k general discussion you have like 2 threads about that.

Don't derail the topic more, you are in a circullar discussion now.


EDIT: Azrael13 said it better.

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

Immediately.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Look, far be it from me to tell anyone what to discuss and who to discuss with, but when a poster has, every day for a week, come online and assumed a contrary position to whatever the prevailing mood seems to be, and proceeded to make the discussion all about them (and the argument that basically boils down to "they shouldn't rewrite the rules, well, ok, they should rewrite rules, but in a different way that I like") then any time you spend wasting time arguing with them is all on you.

So you're saying that they're just vomitting gak like a River Troll?



Fair enough. I didn't pay that much attention to the individual postings before this, but the formation thing had caught my attention and was just about as crazy as the person at my FLGS who is fine with pulling models from the back if he's playing a rank-and-file game but can't stand it in 40k despite the logic of someone stepping up being the same.

Some people just have "different" tastes and I guess I should just accept it instead of beating my head against a brick wall.

GUYS you're going the get the thread locked again. Stop insulting people.

I liked the basic idea of formations but without points costs associated with them (or FOC for that matter ) they're an impossible nightmare to balance.

Earth127 wrote:
GUYS you're going the get the thread locked again. Stop insulting people.

I liked the basic idea of formations but without points costs associated with them (or FOC for that matter ) they're an impossible nightmare to balance.

yup, and with points costs they would need to be very restrictive to balance. So like if you take 3 vindicators and then pay x points they all get +1 S, can be balanced. If you take 3 tanks and then pay x points and they all change damage to D6 wounds is much more difficult to balance.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Look, far be it from me to tell anyone what to discuss and who to discuss with, but when a poster has, every day for a week, come online and assumed a contrary position to whatever the prevailing mood seems to be, and proceeded to make the discussion all about them (and the argument that basically boils down to "they shouldn't rewrite the rules, well, ok, they should rewrite rules, but in a different way that I like") then any time you spend wasting time arguing with them is all on you.

So you're saying that they're just vomitting gak like a River Troll?

No, I'm saying recognising patterns is important, in many ways it's irrelevant whether an unusual opinion is sincerely held or offered purely to provoke, nothing is going to change that opinion, and if the same individual is doing it repeatedly, it's important to assess whether it is going to be productive engaging with them.

The T word is thrown around too readily, I'm happy to accept that arguments are offered in good faith unless there's little room for doubt, but there comes a point where discussion starts to become counterproductive, and it is starting to feel that way.

I am more interested in the command benefits. Right now it says +3 or +9. Does that mean their are other ways to get command benefits? Could there be a way to purchase command benefits for points?

Earth127 wrote:
GUYS you're going the get the thread locked again. Stop insulting people.

I liked the basic idea of formations but without points costs associated with them (or FOC for that matter ) they're an impossible nightmare to balance.

Many of them are impossible to give points though and in some points even run counter to idea of benefit being free points. Add point cost and whoops. Formation loses entire point...

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.

Points are as vague system as any, since there is never a strict indication that X points = X strength for example. More than that points do flat increase or decrease in unit's power, while in a properly balanced formation you can stay on the same power level with increasing the unit's effectivness in one area and decreasing in in another - unit or army wide.

Points arent perfect, they cant be. I will 100% grant that.

But they're as close as anything we're going to get, and they act as the central balancing mechanism.

Formations never worked the way you were proposing, with crappy stuff balancing out great stuff, people designated some units as "taxes" post facto as some sort of balance mechanism, but really they were thrown in because it fit whatever theme or business need GW wanted to push. Even in the couple places one might make the case for such, it just ended up being minmax'd to irrelevance.

The concept of balancing formations as you describe is much more difficult, was never done in practice, and doesnt add anything the game doesnt already have mechanisms for.

You want to boost the power of one unit and decrease another? Fine, take a smaller number of models with fewer upgrades on the latter and bigger units with all the gubbins on the former. Bam, done, no need for a formation.


Formation balance of the type you are proposing just doesnt work unless you specify *everything* beforehand, and at that point you lose any flexibility and could still accomplish the same thing with points.

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

How are thay adding more complexity than, say wargear that does the same thing?

because wargear you're buying in explicit quantities for an explicit unit at an explicit cost, whereas with formations not only are you adding complexity to the units involved at no cost (and typically at a hamfisted level where there is no controlling for things like unit size or often unit count) you're also adding complexity to army construction that doesnt need to be there.

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.

What stops formations from having their special rules activated only in cpecific circumstances or by specific units in that formation thus allowing the enemy to counter it?

the fact that almost none of them have any abilities that act in such a manner, and that such could be added just as easily at the unit level if needed?

Again it goes back to "what do formations do that cant be handled at the unit level"?

Even if we accept there are some places where formations could work as you desire them to, you could get the same result without opening up the space for abuse that Formations are known for, and without the added army construction messiness.

I'm curious how ATSKNF will carry over in regards to Battleschock. D3+Wounded vs LD or Wounded vs Ld alone perhaps?

It feels like the Leadership will matter more often, but I can't see a fluff rule like that going away completely, so I've been mulling over how they'll do it.

That said, Fearless is likely going to remain. I just hope it's not on over half of the units in the game anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howscat wrote:
I am more interested in the command benefits. Right now it says +3 or +9. Does that mean their are other ways to get command benefits? Could there be a way to purchase command benefits for points?

What little we were told is that they were going to be tied into the FOC. Some Warlord traits might add a point or two as well (assuming we still have WT).

Anyone else find it odd that in the detachments they revealed, there aren't any LoW/fortification slots?

I mean, I think there are at least a dozen more to be released, but these seem like the basic ones, and it's strange they don't allow for LoWs. I think almost all current detachment FoC charts allow for at least one LoW.

 Howscat wrote:
I am more interested in the command benefits. Right now it says +3 or +9. Does that mean their are other ways to get command benefits? Could there be a way to purchase command benefits for points?

Well certainly possible but I suspect no.

Well it could be some quick&rough balance mechanism for open games I suspect like smaller army on model count gets some(like in AOS smaller army gets sudden death win condition) or some scenarios could offer. We'll see.

 Howscat wrote:
I am more interested in the command benefits. Right now it says +3 or +9. Does that mean their are other ways to get command benefits? Could there be a way to purchase command benefits for points?

Dunno about purchasing but i have a feeling its going to involve things like bringing in a reserve unit without rolling, or possible even a simple reroll any dice at the cost of a C point.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Anyone else find it odd that in the detachments they revealed, there aren't any LoW/fortification slots?

I mean, I think there are at least a dozen more to be released, but these seem like the basic ones, and it's strange they don't allow for LoWs. I think almost all current detachment FoC charts allow for at least one LoW.

those 3 seem like the very basic scaling FOC. im guessing there will be cool FOCs for mission/narrative type games like defense, offence, that involve LOW or Forts. there will probably be other generic ones too like kill teams that are like a few elites troops and FA for the sake of smaller point games. just spit balling

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Anyone else find it odd that in the detachments they revealed, there aren't any LoW/fortification slots?

I mean, I think there are at least a dozen more to be released, but these seem like the basic ones, and it's strange they don't allow for LoWs. I think almost all current detachment FoC charts allow for at least one LoW.

Not really. I suspect they want to restrict them in detachments that give command points so are in detachments that offer less of those.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Anyone else find it odd that in the detachments they revealed, there aren't any LoW/fortification slots?

I mean, I think there are at least a dozen more to be released, but these seem like the basic ones, and it's strange they don't allow for LoWs. I think almost all current detachment FoC charts allow for at least one LoW.

I feel like LoW and Fortifications will likely have their own FoCs you take in addition to your standard detachment choice. I have a feeling this may have been done to give more tools to tournament organizers by allowing them to ban or restrict certain detachment choices instead of needing to alter the FoC itself.

 Howscat wrote:
I am more interested in the command benefits. Right now it says +3 or +9. Does that mean their are other ways to get command benefits? Could there be a way to purchase command benefits for points?

Is this not just because you can take multiple detachments which each give command points? I can't imagine they'll be purchasable for points as that kinda defeats the point of them as a balance tool.

Eyjio wrote:

 Howscat wrote:
I am more interested in the command benefits. Right now it says +3 or +9. Does that mean their are other ways to get command benefits? Could there be a way to purchase command benefits for points?

Is this not just because you can take multiple detachments which each give command points? I can't imagine they'll be purchasable for points as that kinda defeats the point of them as a balance tool.

Probably why the patrol gives 0 of them.

There is a tax involved in spamming FoCs for command points. I mean if you want 6 you need 4 HQs and 6 Troop choices before you get anything else in your list. Just for 3 more points? Seems like a balanced trade off (unless your opponent runs an all Crusader Squad Black Tide or something I guess).

I'm sure there will be ways to unlock extra points without needing to stack your detachments, but the bonuses will likely be small (+1 here, maybe a +2 there).

Definitely interested in what the remaining BRB detachments look like. As was stated earlier a Deathwing style detachment is very likely, which makes me want to try a Deff'wing list full of MANZ missiles.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Probably why the patrol gives 0 of them.

There is a tax involved in spamming FoCs for command points. I mean if you want 6 you need 4 HQs and 6 Troop choices before you get anything else in your list. Just for 3 more points? Seems like a balanced trade off (unless your opponent runs an all Crusader Squad Black Tide or something I guess).

I'm sure there will be ways to unlock extra points without needing to stack your detachments, but the bonuses will likely be small (+1 here, maybe a +2 there).

I noticed that too. At first I was a little bothered by it, but then it occurred to me that, since we really don't even know what the uses for the points are yet, it's probably going to be okay. Part of me wonders if they'll be like the points from old 5th ed planetstrike (and then kind of hopes not).

I'm really worried about it from the perspective of IG though. Unless they change platoons, you can basically stack an entire army worth of infantry into a single troop slot if you wanted to. Six troop slots is 130 guardsmen, minimum, unless you're taking veterans. I think in most of my games at 1500-2000 points previously, I took about 50-60 (including HQ and vets) tops. That's a lot of padding to get the hip new points.

 Howscat wrote:
I am more interested in the command benefits. Right now it says +3 or +9. Does that mean their are other ways to get command benefits? Could there be a way to purchase command benefits for points?

We've also learned that we will be able to "bet" command benefits for things like deploying or going first. I also wonder if we will be able to use command benefits for army wide strategems - like better deep strike, or other strategic choices like infiltrate, etc.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Barely. Formations were pretty universally hated on Dakka, in fact, this thread shows most of people calling 7th the "Formation Edition" or the "Free Edition".

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725126.page

Yeah, I'm not sure that 4 people out of more than a hundred thousand registered users mentioning that formations are a thing in a thread listing the defining features of each edition is really much of an indicator that formations are universally hated by this community...



Having said that, IMO formations were another of those 'good idea, badly implemented' things that have been so prevalent in 6th/7th edition, so I'm not sorry to see them go.

As a player hat has never once had an interest in WHFantasy or it's reincarnation as AoS I am troubled by the very sudden and abrupt coming changes.

That being said, What GW has released so far actually seems to be mostly in line with they claim to be aiming for. They are speaking a lot about adding greater emphasis to melee and adding value to previously under-utilized models. The new rules (so far) reflect this and I think will actually help to realize those goals. But I think it will come at a cost. Because the 'streamlined' new rules are so radically different, I can already smell a new meta developing.

It's just my opinion, but 40k has been slowing losing steam over the past few editions for a number of reasons and completely retooling the ruleset never occurred to me as a solution to any of the game's problems.

40k's success was due in no small part to it's amazing background and lore - the stuff meta-gamers and min-maxers lovelessly refer to as 'fluff'. But it's the 'fluff' that sets it apart (IMO above) the competition. I'd much rather play WH40k than say Flames of War for the same reason that I'd rather play Relic's Space Marine than Battlefield, Call of Duty, or Medal of Honor. It's not they are bad games, but they all effectively just different shades of the same color. By comparison WH40k and it's related games - all based on the same 'fluff' has the added value of being characterful. For my part, the 'fluff' is the greatest value - and GW has been slowly chipping away at that value for the last several editions. I think it was in 4th edition that Space Marines stopped being referred to as 'warrior monks'. And I haven't heard the Adeptus Astartes referred to as the 'cult of the Emperor' in years. All of that 'grim-dark' lore faded until Space Marines are all just... ultramarines... pseudo-roman soldiers in space. It is so bland now that they are only marginally distinguishable from the 'marines' of any other game.

There's a point here I promise (I'm long-winded, sorry).

I am ... reluctantly excited by these new changes. I have my doubts because very historical example GW has given for the last decade indicates to me that they will just continue to diminish the 40k's unique flavor as they pine for greater mass appeal. However, the way these rules are looking - and it's just an early look - seems to be the beginning of something good. By eschewing USRs in favor of the bespoke rules everyone is having so much fun repeating, they are opening the door to a revitalization of that unique character. Hopefully the Chaos factions will get some quality treatment and they can add some blood and gore back into the franchise. I only hope that the Space Marines don't get too washed out by the boys in blue. These new rules are perfect opportunity to give factions like the Black Templars and Imperial Fists a little time in the spotlight. Factions like the Dark Angels and Blood Angels will also see some real gains here as they will have renewed value on the table, which will hopefully carry over into other things.

The devil will be in the details. I'm curious to see what parts of the various factions really do get 'bespoke' rules. Since armor is no loner a thing for vehicles Wraithlords just took a huge hit in value and these new rules could very likely make them less appealing. I can see the same happening for a few other units as well so all I can do now is wait for the full rules to come out...

Change is scary! I never linked Tzeentch!

 daedalus wrote:
I'm really worried about it from the perspective of IG though. Unless they change platoons, you can basically stack an entire army worth of infantry into a single troop slot if you wanted to. Six troop slots is 130 guardsmen, minimum, unless you're taking veterans. I think in most of my games at 1500-2000 points previously, I took about 50-60 (including HQ and vets) tops. That's a lot of padding to get the hip new points.

That is bit scary thought. Wonder how they handle IG. If they drop platoon idea that kinda runs against IG's idea of getting lots of infantry but with platoons those minimum troops would be real hassle to fill.

Veterans are there but required to use those to avoid 130 guardsmen...And still haven't figured good way to separate veterans and non veterans easily.

tneva82 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I'm really worried about it from the perspective of IG though. Unless they change platoons, you can basically stack an entire army worth of infantry into a single troop slot if you wanted to. Six troop slots is 130 guardsmen, minimum, unless you're taking veterans. I think in most of my games at 1500-2000 points previously, I took about 50-60 (including HQ and vets) tops. That's a lot of padding to get the hip new points.

That is bit scary thought. Wonder how they handle IG. If they drop platoon idea that kinda runs against IG's idea of getting lots of infantry but with platoons those minimum troops would be real hassle to fill.

Veterans are there but required to use those to avoid 130 guardsmen...And still haven't figured good way to separate veterans and non veterans easily.

I did some custom heads and backpacks and a different paintjob. The downside being that they're no longer interchangable.

Pics (spoiled for OT) :