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.

Ones already been said.

You can upgrade all your intercessors to vets(probably a Ld and Attack added) which isn't overly impressive or game breaking.

I doubt we'll go back to bring 3 units of this, 4 of that and no more than 1 of this.

The Salt Mine wrote:
The idea of formations wasn't a bad one. The implementation of them was terrible in 7th though. I think as long as they cost CP and do not allow gak like 400 pts of free razorbacks. I think formations could add a lot to the game if done right.

On paper yes, but your example is what made SM competitive. The reality of 7th with all the OP Eldar invisible lists and unkillable Riptides, they needed a free 400 points worth of vehicles just to stay relevant. Says more about the other codexes than it did the concept behind formations.

Granted some were very unbalanced, and others were pointless and never saw the light of day.

If they do go back to Formation rules, they will probably take a leaf out of AOS, hoping with either heavy penalty CP wise or cost an appropriate amount of points to "buy" the detachment as part of your list.

The Salt Mine wrote:
The idea of formations wasn't a bad one. The implementation of them was terrible in 7th though. I think as long as they cost CP and do not allow gak like 400 pts of free razorbacks. I think formations could add a lot to the game if done right.

Honestly the implementation was overall fine. I personally would've taken out the large Decurion style ones and you get a formation/ally detachment for every CAD you take, but it really wasn't bad outside the few boogeymen.

Seems resonable to give mono lists extra rules to balance the extra utility soup lists have .

Formations also forced you to take specific units... never a fan of that. Seeing the same list over and over again is simply boring. With the new detachment system, Formations are a relic of the past, they aren't needed in anyway, and I doubt GW will balance them in anyway reasonably.

Sir Heckington wrote:
Formations also forced you to take specific units... never a fan of that. Seeing the same list over and over again is simply boring. With the new detachment system, Formations are a relic of the past, they aren't needed in anyway, and I doubt GW will balance them in anyway reasonably.

I agree, I never liked the formation system from 7th either, but AOS has implemented a similar system and something that could very easily translate over to 40k. It's something we may all have to get used to again. If it's appropriately costed and/or comes with pre-game CP costs it might work better this time around though.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Formations also forced you to take specific units... never a fan of that. Seeing the same list over and over again is simply boring. With the new detachment system, Formations are a relic of the past, they aren't needed in anyway, and I doubt GW will balance them in anyway reasonably.

I agree, I never liked the formation system from 7th either, but AOS has implemented a similar system and something that could very easily translate over to 40k. It's something we may all have to get used to again. If it's appropriately costed and/or comes with pre-game CP costs it might work better this time around though.

Might. Still can be salty though.

I like the idea of Rites of war from 30k (Not the bonuses some give though), but the idea of switching around roles without actually giving any buffs or negatives, and just allows for fluffy lists, that I like.

Truth to be said, in AoS they actually managed to make the formations part of the game without many issues. There were a couple that were over the top, but got fixed.
Those formations in AoS can easily cost more than 200 points on top of the models, so it is always a choice if you want to pay for the bonuses.

As always, AoS leads and tests and 40K follows. This will be just another example of that.

Spoletta wrote:
Truth to be said, in AoS they actually managed to make the formations part of the game without many issues. There were a couple that were over the top, but got fixed.
Those formations in AoS can easily cost more than 200 points on top of the models, so it is always a choice if you want to pay for the bonuses.

As always, AoS leads and tests and 40K follows. This will be just another example of that.

Couple of things here: 1. Is it right to say AoS leads and 40k follows when battalions in AoS were already ripped straight out of 7th?

2. Battalions created massive issues in AoS to the point where every new battalion they come out with is 100 points or more but barely confers any benefit. Warrior Brotherhood when it first came out was just over 100 points and allowed and entire stormcast army to null deploy and do a no scatter 3" range deepstrike. Vanguard wing allowed you to deepstrike a unit of 30 Liberators INTO combat, no charging necessary. You could even spiderweb around chaff unit to get directly to enemy heroes. Aetherstike force allowed one of the best shooting units in the game at the time to fire up to FIVE TIMES in a single turn.

Here's a couple of direct comparisons, keeping in mind that these battalions haven't changed in price much. Hammerstrike force used to allow Stormcast Assault Terminator equivalents to no scatter deepstrike up to 6" away from the enemy(so long as they stayed within 9" of another deepstriking unit you could bring in). That SAME battalion now gives you +1 to wound if you're WHOLLY within 9" of a squishy shooting unit for the same price. That Vanguard wing I mentioned earlier? It went from allowing you to deploy your melee units DIRECTLY INTO COMBAT to 'add +1 damage to your attack when the UNMODIFIED hit roll of the units attack is a 6, but only if they stay WHOLLY within 16" of a squishy shooting unit for 140 points(down from 180). The difference in power between those two versions of the battalions is staggering and they're almost the same price.

TL: DR, Battalions aren't a problem in Sigmar anymore because they're almost universally worthless. There is a battalion that cost ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY POINTS so very nearly the cost of a unit of Hellblasters, that all it does is give a 4+ save shooting unit reroll ones to save if you have a melee unit WHOLLY within THREE GORRAM INCHES of them. You don't even need to play Sigmar to know how terrible that is. Just imagine you had a formation that would give your Dire Avengers reroll 1s to save if you kept an entire unit of howling banshees within 3" of them AND paid 160pts.

 stonehorse wrote:
I like it how someone said that they have been playing for decades, then said 40 years.... especially as not even GW have been around for 40 years. Would like to know how 40k has been around for longer than the company that invented it, because that is a great little trick.

I apologize for my for my typo. I meant 30 years.
That 3 & 4 are real close together depending upon keypad & size of finger tips. But since it bothered you so much I went back & corrected it.

Oh! And speaking of correcting things.... https://jobs.games-workshop.com/our-history/timeline

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Formations also forced you to take specific units... never a fan of that. Seeing the same list over and over again is simply boring. With the new detachment system, Formations are a relic of the past, they aren't needed in anyway, and I doubt GW will balance them in anyway reasonably.

I agree, I never liked the formation system from 7th either, but AOS has implemented a similar system and something that could very easily translate over to 40k. It's something we may all have to get used to again. If it's appropriately costed and/or comes with pre-game CP costs it might work better this time around though.

The problem with all of that is it assumes incorrectly that CP has a fixed value, which is realy doesn't.
Some codex's have good return on points cost troops and others have poor return on points cost troops. Same for HQ choices.

Not to mention the vast difference in point for minimum strength battalions.

These will end up just a broken as strategums where mono they were ok but got recosted because of allies.

Sir Heckington wrote:
Formations also forced you to take specific units... never a fan of that. Seeing the same list over and over again is simply boring. With the new detachment system, Formations are a relic of the past, they aren't needed in anyway, and I doubt GW will balance them in anyway reasonably.

GK have 1 troop option miles better then the other, One support unit that maybe can be played, and two valid options of HQs. I am forced in to taking units already. Wouldn't mind getting some extra rules, if that was possible.

Sir Heckington wrote:
Formations also forced you to take specific units... never a fan of that. Seeing the same list over and over again is simply boring. With the new detachment system, Formations are a relic of the past, they aren't needed in anyway, and I doubt GW will balance them in anyway reasonably.

As opposed to the FoC where people literally spam the best unit of each slot, and have done so form the day FoCs were a thing?

Karol wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Formations also forced you to take specific units... never a fan of that. Seeing the same list over and over again is simply boring. With the new detachment system, Formations are a relic of the past, they aren't needed in anyway, and I doubt GW will balance them in anyway reasonably.

GK have 1 troop option miles better then the other, One support unit that maybe can be played, and two valid options of HQs. I am forced in to taking units already. Wouldn't mind getting some extra rules, if that was possible.

Except GW would require you to take the lesser competitive units for a marginal benifit, while Guard will get something like +1BS to all tanks in a spearhead or such, will you might pay 1CP to their 3CP it's still totally unbalanced infavour of Guard.

Karol wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Formations also forced you to take specific units... never a fan of that. Seeing the same list over and over again is simply boring. With the new detachment system, Formations are a relic of the past, they aren't needed in anyway, and I doubt GW will balance them in anyway reasonably.

GK have 1 troop option miles better then the other, One support unit that maybe can be played, and two valid options of HQs. I am forced in to taking units already. Wouldn't mind getting some extra rules, if that was possible.

Not to mention that(in part thanks to the rule of three) there are only really about a dozen units in addition to the mandatory troops and HQs showing up in tournaments anyway. It's not like there's far to fall in reducing list diversity.

Ice_can wrote:

Karol wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Formations also forced you to take specific units... never a fan of that. Seeing the same list over and over again is simply boring. With the new detachment system, Formations are a relic of the past, they aren't needed in anyway, and I doubt GW will balance them in anyway reasonably.

GK have 1 troop option miles better then the other, One support unit that maybe can be played, and two valid options of HQs. I am forced in to taking units already. Wouldn't mind getting some extra rules, if that was possible.

Except GW would require you to take the lesser competitive units for a marginal benifit, while Guard will get something like +1BS to all tanks in a spearhead or such, will you might pay 1CP to their 3CP it's still totally unbalanced infavour of Guard.

Maybe for other armies that does make sense. But with GK there is no such thing as lesser competitive option. All are non competitive. And IG are better then GK no matter what. I stoped carrying about how fun or unfun other people armies are, I just want GW to make my army more fun to play with. I don't see eldar players cry that their faction is unbalanced every edition since w40k exists, in fact they seem to be having more and more fun each edition.

ERJAK wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Truth to be said, in AoS they actually managed to make the formations part of the game without many issues. There were a couple that were over the top, but got fixed.
Those formations in AoS can easily cost more than 200 points on top of the models, so it is always a choice if you want to pay for the bonuses.

As always, AoS leads and tests and 40K follows. This will be just another example of that.

Couple of things here: 1. Is it right to say AoS leads and 40k follows when battalions in AoS were already ripped straight out of 7th?

2. Battalions created massive issues in AoS to the point where every new battalion they come out with is 100 points or more but barely confers any benefit. Warrior Brotherhood when it first came out was just over 100 points and allowed and entire stormcast army to null deploy and do a no scatter 3" range deepstrike. Vanguard wing allowed you to deepstrike a unit of 30 Liberators INTO combat, no charging necessary. You could even spiderweb around chaff unit to get directly to enemy heroes. Aetherstike force allowed one of the best shooting units in the game at the time to fire up to FIVE TIMES in a single turn.

Here's a couple of direct comparisons, keeping in mind that these battalions haven't changed in price much. Hammerstrike force used to allow Stormcast Assault Terminator equivalents to no scatter deepstrike up to 6" away from the enemy(so long as they stayed within 9" of another deepstriking unit you could bring in). That SAME battalion now gives you +1 to wound if you're WHOLLY within 9" of a squishy shooting unit for the same price. That Vanguard wing I mentioned earlier? It went from allowing you to deploy your melee units DIRECTLY INTO COMBAT to 'add +1 damage to your attack when the UNMODIFIED hit roll of the units attack is a 6, but only if they stay WHOLLY within 16" of a squishy shooting unit for 140 points(down from 180). The difference in power between those two versions of the battalions is staggering and they're almost the same price.

TL: DR, Battalions aren't a problem in Sigmar anymore because they're almost universally worthless. There is a battalion that cost ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY POINTS so very nearly the cost of a unit of Hellblasters, that all it does is give a 4+ save shooting unit reroll ones to save if you have a melee unit WHOLLY within THREE GORRAM INCHES of them. You don't even need to play Sigmar to know how terrible that is. Just imagine you had a formation that would give your Dire Avengers reroll 1s to save if you kept an entire unit of howling banshees within 3" of them AND paid 160pts.

There ae obviously small exceptions where AoS took from 40K, but you can't honestly say that AoS has not been massively used as a testing ground for new mechanics to introduce in 40K. Just look at the CA missions for a clear example.

Also, as i said and you kindly confirmed, there were some problematic formations initially, but they have been fixed. Today formations (or battalions in AoS terms) are widely used without major balance issues. Sure this was done by making them more on the UP side than OP, but that's what they should be, niche choices for particular lists, and they do that fairly well.

From what I have been told AoS formations are limited to undead which are the eldar of AoS, and everyone else getting bad formations that don't even compare to what the undead get.
Although it does come from people playing AoS here, so not that many.

I know people ended up with illegal list after AoS new edition came. Not a happy bunch of people, the WFB/AoS players are.

Karol wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Formations also forced you to take specific units... never a fan of that. Seeing the same list over and over again is simply boring. With the new detachment system, Formations are a relic of the past, they aren't needed in anyway, and I doubt GW will balance them in anyway reasonably.

GK have 1 troop option miles better then the other, One support unit that maybe can be played, and two valid options of HQs. I am forced in to taking units already. Wouldn't mind getting some extra rules, if that was possible.

I'd rather them try to fix those units than force you to take a specific set of units to make them decent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

Karol wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Formations also forced you to take specific units... never a fan of that. Seeing the same list over and over again is simply boring. With the new detachment system, Formations are a relic of the past, they aren't needed in anyway, and I doubt GW will balance them in anyway reasonably.

GK have 1 troop option miles better then the other, One support unit that maybe can be played, and two valid options of HQs. I am forced in to taking units already. Wouldn't mind getting some extra rules, if that was possible.

Not to mention that(in part thanks to the rule of three) there are only really about a dozen units in addition to the mandatory troops and HQs showing up in tournaments anyway. It's not like there's far to fall in reducing list diversity.

That's because of balance, that can be worked around. With the removal of the rule of 3 (Which should be removed), the FoC might as well not exist other than to give CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Formations also forced you to take specific units... never a fan of that. Seeing the same list over and over again is simply boring. With the new detachment system, Formations are a relic of the past, they aren't needed in anyway, and I doubt GW will balance them in anyway reasonably.

As opposed to the FoC where people literally spam the best unit of each slot, and have done so form the day FoCs were a thing?

That's why I like percentage army building over FoCs

Any specific news? Other than the original leaks?

gendoikari87 wrote:
Any specific news? Other than the original leaks?

Not anything solid, no. Really, it's mostly speculation at this point.

I'd rather them try to fix those units than force you to take a specific set of units to make them decent.

I would like them to do that too. But I trust them to do it as much as I trust my goverment saying that a 40% rise of electricity and fuel cost is not going to effect the normal consumer. Am not against GK having different units doing different stuff, maybe even more then one carbon copy of an army out of the same codex I just think there is very little they can do by lowering points costs by 1-5pts. Rumors say GK will get the non baby smite. If true, it is an improvment, but it does change us in to 1ksons without Magnus,ahriman , DPs and tzangor. Who knows though, may GK after CA are going to be made out of 3-4 GMNDKs with draigo, 32 imperial cultists or some SoB chaff. It may even end up a good list in the hands of a very competent players. Hard to judge right now without seeing the whole CA GK section.

That's because of balance, that can be worked around. With the removal of the rule of 3 (Which should be removed), the FoC might as well not exist other than to give CP.

It was a stupid fix. Instead of fixing Inari dark reapers, they made it less fun for everyone else to play. What is worse, at the time the change became a thing, eldar were already using fewer then 3 units of reapers .

The Rule of 3 was not an attempt to fix Ynnari Reapers. It was an attempt to fix things like Flyrant Spam.

At the same time, they adjusted a number of things to nerf Ynnari Reapers:
-You can't do a fluffy Ynnari detatchement anymore
-Nerfs to psykic powers
-Bump in PPM for Reapers

The result? Reapers are still good, but not OP. Spears are still OP, so Ynnari still works. But I see a *lot* fewer Reapers than many other units across multiple armies.

You might want to look at *why* Eldar use less-than-3 of their strongest unit. Instead of Auras like Marine players, Eldar get a large number of buff-one-unit powers. Protect, Fortune, LQR, etc are amazing, but can only impact one target. So they can only turn one unit of Spears into a super-killer-unit. Units #2 and #3 die quickly and can't do as much damage.

So that unit (was Reapers, is now Spears) is the Eldar everything. Whereas IoM has beatsticks, Eldar don't - they need their One Unit to do the beatstick role. Whereas IoM has massive Knights that do amazing things especially for their points, Eldar don't - they need their One Unit to fill that role too.

That's part of why they're unfun to play:
-The IoM template list has a big rook-style badass of a Knight, a mobile beatstick nasty fether zooming around killing stuff, and chaff an CP for days.
-The Eldar list has one unit that does everything, and most of the rest supports that unit. So you can't touch that unit, and can't survive that unit.

This means you can try different things vs the IoM list, but there's no real choices when facing the Eldar list. Which makes it much less fun.

If they wanted to fix Flyrant spam, they would've made wings more expensive.

Now you're still obligated to take the max you can. It didn't fix the unit at all.

When I said "things like Flyrant Spam", I meant Flyrant Spam and things like it.

Making Flyrant wings more expensive wouldn't fix Ravager Spam. Or any other type of Spam out there.

I agree that Flyrant wings should be more expensive (hopefully they do so in CA, we'll see), but (1) that's only one instance of what they were trying to fix, and (2) they were avoiding points changes where viable.

That said, 6th and 7th had a very similar rule - the main FoC only had 3 FA/Elite/HS slots. Detatchemnts being so bonkers and many of the OP crap being troops (Serpents, Scatter Bikes, Tac Marines, SM Bikes) kinda made it less important.

Tactical Marines were taken 6 times. That's because of Gladius look at that.

Also the easiest fix to the Ravager is to hit the Disintegrator and buff the Dark Lance. Rule Of Three does nothing to stop the unit itself from being broken. It only limits how many you can take.

"Tactical Marines were taken 6 times. That's because of Gladius look at that."
I didn't realize they had Gladius before their 7E codex! Obsec Spam lists - Tacs and Pods or Rhinos - did great in 7E as soon as it dropped, long before Gladius was a rule.

"Also the easiest fix to the Ravager is to hit the Disintegrator and buff the Dark Lance. Rule Of Three does nothing to stop the unit itself from being broken. It only limits how many you can take."
So now you've fixed 2 units out of maybe a thousand units in the game. Sure, only maybe a dozen of them needed fixing. But, assuming your fixes are perfect, you're only 1/6th of the way there.

The Rule of Three is more of a stopgap or limitor on how broken a non-troop can be in practice. Because they will continue to make mistakes. And they knew they couldn't fully rebalance every broken unit. So, of course they should continue to fix units. But, unless they can be confident that they've properly handled *every single* offender, and will *never* release an offender again, the Rule of Three still mitigates a very real scenario.

The question was "Rule of Three or no Rule of Three", not "Rule of Three or this other list of fixes".

Rule of Three is like a vaccination. It's a great idea and prevents a LOT of sickness, but it doesn't cure what is already sick.
Individual units still need "treatment", but the Rule of 3 stopped the sickness from growing.

-

Was it mentioned that Custodes are getting cheaper?
If so I may finally get a small collection of these majestic champs

Rule of 3 is a bandaid fix that only serves to limit fluffy armies.

That is all.

It is not needed within the current detachment system. The units that it effects can just be fixed instead.

As for the argument that it mitigates upcoming cheese, there will always be bad cheese. Even with rule of 3, it's a band aid fix that doesn't attack the heart of the problem.