Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I really like this formation. Morale immunity and always in cover is a really neat trick, your warlord is also an LT, and for example, your Lev is now dishing out an extra 3 MWs on its attack against vehicles for 1cp. Also pretty nice on Deredeos or Kheres Mortis.

The specialist detachment arms race begins?

I like it overall but the "anti-building" thing might be a little too specific (it's fluffy though) as I've never actually encountered destructible buildings in my games (we use a lot of ruins terrain at my FLGS but I think those are indestructible normally? Kinda makes me wonder why those things don't have a standard datasheet to use).

 Trickstick wrote:
Seems interesting. Probably better if you see buildings often. I like the idea of getting some high RoF guns and fishing for mortal wounds against vehicles.

Could be real nasty with a dakka Redemptor if Imperial Fists have a way to get a +1 to their wound rolls.

Pandabeer wrote:
Could be real nasty with a dakka Redemptor if Imperial Fists have a way to get a +1 to their wound rolls.

Well the relic gives a 6" reroll 1s bubble, which isn't horrible.

 Trickstick wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:
Could be real nasty with a dakka Redemptor if Imperial Fists have a way to get a +1 to their wound rolls.

Well the relic gives a 6" reroll 1s bubble, which isn't horrible.

Well, 2-3 dakka Redemptors, a buffcaptain with the relic (becomes a Girlyman-lite with it), pop the stratagem, target vehicle that needs erasing... mortal wound parade Would be even more hilarious on a pair of Leviathan dreads with double Storm Cannon Arrays but I personally to stay away from FW if it all possible due to not everyone allowing it.

If this is what formations are I think it's an ok adaption. None of this is crazy over the top and it requires a CP that could go to other places. It's a bit annoying as an Iron Warrior player to see them effectively get their warlord trait but better.

I hope GW releases stuff equally over time for a each sub faction. Obviously they can't release enough campaign books to keep up with everything but maybe future white dwarfs and Chapter Approved can release some.

 Formosa wrote:
Called it, formations are back, different name but same thing, mixed feeling I have.

It's not reaaally the same thing. The fact that it can be slapped onto any detachment, rather than the extremely specific set of units that GW just so happens to have an undiscounted bundle up on the store for, is a very good thing. You could make your Siege Breaker Cohort a battalion and you just wouldn't get any extra benefit on the scouts, rather than 7th edition formations where if you wanted this detachment you couldn't bring your scouts.

I am sooo split on this one.

On the one hand i like it- its not OP, its not UP, but only because it effects the most useless units in the SM book- apart from dreads i suppose.

IF the rumoured intercessor strat, which actually sounds very useful for an all primaris player like myself, is limited to the smurfs...... then vigilus can go feth itself.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If Centurions get an actual proper buff, I can see Eye Of Hypnoth castles doing good work.

That's a pretty big "if", this is exactly the sort of thing that tends to cause GW to f--- up the pricing of a unit. (Still hopeful for the rumored price drops to bring them down 20-25 points per model though.)

 Stux wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If Centurions get an actual proper buff, I can see Eye Of Hypnoth castles doing good work.

The main question is how does this work with Successor Chapters?

Don't successor chapters just use the key word you want? So use Imperial Fist keywords on your random chapter. I guess Black Templars are different but all the others would be fine.

If we are being technical i think they only get the doctrine not the keywords (at least that’s what happens to custom regiments in the guard) so you couldn’t do this if that’s the case

This is correct.

There's two ways to run successors:

1. Official
This is the method printed in the codex. You replace CHAPTER with the chapter of your choice, and choose the Chapter Tactic of the parent or the one you feel best represents the Chapter if the parent is not clear.

2. Counts As
You actually run the Chapter for all rules purposes as the parent Chapter, but you call them something different and paint them whatever.

Generally speaking it's better to run them as the second option, because you don't lose out on Special Characters and other similar things. However if your Successor chapter has their own specific things them you would need to use the first method so actually are that chapter.

So! If you run Crimson Fists using method 1 so you can take Pedro Kantor then you are NOT Imperial Fists so you can't use this formation. If you use method 2 then for rules purposes you are Imperial Fists so you can use the formation, but you aren't technically Crimson Fists so no Pedro Kantor.

You can't have it both ways basically!

My Crimson Fists am cry. Hopefully they get their own or it specifies somewhere that they can use this, because it'd be dumb as hell if they couldn't.

It states in the article these are 'Narrative-driven'.
Now while WH Community seem to enjoy getting rules etc. slightly wrong, and this statement is unclear, that could be sen to imply they are Narrative only additions to the game.

 grouchoben wrote:
I really like this formation. Morale immunity and always in cover is a really neat trick, your warlord is also an LT, and for example, your Lev is now dishing out an extra 3 MWs on its attack against vehicles for 1cp. Also pretty nice on Deredeos or Kheres Mortis.

This is what bothers me a bit (not you personally). This new formation comes out and what is the result? Forgeworld, Forgeworld, Forgeworld. I wish it was more specific to entries within the codex.

The main issue I see with this is one of creep again.

Looking at the imperial fist one, its not that powerful

1. The warlord trait granting cover is nice, but is situational as tables could provide it just as easily.
2. The relic is just a lieutenant buff, that only effects a subset of units.
3. The mortal wound stratagem is ok, but its on 6s for units that are already bringing either all of the anti tank in low shot weapons, or its on dakka platforms that aren't optimally targeting vehicles anyway. the only unit it could have real value on would be a 6 man centurion unit with hurricane bolters, but then you're getting into silly costing for a unit that is still more effective targeting infantry.

This 'fluffy' formation is fine. but the fact its not too powerful means that no one will have a problem adopting them for matched play, and as more come out they will be the norm. Until one comes out which is actually broken. But by that point they will be so widely adopted that no one is going to look reasonable saying, hey lets not use these rules in matched play.

Deathwatch101 wrote:
It states in the article these are 'Narrative-driven'.
Now while WH Community seem to enjoy getting rules etc. slightly wrong, and this statement is unclear, that could be sen to imply they are Narrative only additions to the game.

People who attended a GW seminar have said they mentioned there it was for Matched too.

Deathwatch101 wrote:
It states in the article these are 'Narrative-driven'.
Now while WH Community seem to enjoy getting rules etc. slightly wrong, and this statement is unclear, that could be sen to imply they are Narrative only additions to the game.

I'd interpret that as "these are made to accommodate things that happened in the story, don't complain that it only covers Units X Y and Z because that's who were there, and this is how they did it."

Basically, don't complain that your panzergrenadiers in Russia can't use special rules for the Afrika Korps.

secretForge wrote:
3. The mortal wound stratagem is ok, but its on 6s for units that are already bringing either all of the anti tank in low shot weapons, or its on dakka platforms that aren't optimally targeting vehicles anyway. the only unit it could have real value on would be a 6 man centurion unit with hurricane bolters, but then you're getting into silly costing for a unit that is still more effective targeting infantry.

I view the stratagem as something to use when you need to kill a vehicle and all you have left is something with poor AT power. So when your lascannons failed to kill the knight you can turn your bolters on it and have a decent chance of finishing it off. A selective boost, not something to use every turn.

Will all armies get some sort of formation general formation, like lets say a siege detachment that can be used by all marine armies that can take the proper units for it?

Or will they be limited to 1-2 per every faction?

Deathwatch101 wrote:
It states in the article these are 'Narrative-driven'.
Now while WH Community seem to enjoy getting rules etc. slightly wrong, and this statement is unclear, that could be sen to imply they are Narrative only additions to the game.

Which could just mean "the narrative of the book" ie the formations are only for use whilst playing Vigilus Defiant scenarios.

Audustum wrote:
People who attended a GW seminar have said they mentioned there it was for Matched too.

Persumably you can play Vigilus missions in Matched play.

Karol wrote:
Will all armies get some sort of formation general formation, like lets say a siege detachment that can be used by all marine armies that can take the proper units for it?

Or will they be limited to 1-2 per every faction?

If its as bad as 7th Ed - not all armies will even get a single formation, some will get loads and some will be totally broken.

Overall, I love it, because its fluffy and not that good.

As it breaks down for me, you are spending a CP to allow your IF Captain to stand still and units in aura gain cover. And incidental access to some other stuff that might be good.

Overall, I'd be excited if I was a IF player, but at this point, I hope they are all like this. Some cool, but nothing that makes people all the sudden start painting Fists.

Being able to create your own cover is pretty nice. Makes holding objectives in the open a bit easier, for instance.

 buddha wrote:
Formations 'lite" are back it seems. At least this time you need to CPs to pay to enjoy the special rules. Seems like a good balance.

Not really. It will just encourage MOAR SOUP to get more CP's to pay for all the new bonuses. These are even worse then formations form 7th because there is no drawback to them at all. The only limit is how many CP/turn you can generate.

 Tamwulf wrote:
The only limit is how many CP/turn you can generate.

Well that would only be 1/round now, with the tactical restraint beta rule.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
The only limit is how many CP/turn you can generate.

Well that would only be 1/round now, with the tactical restraint beta rule.

Exactly. THIS killed 3 Codex armies. If you saw recent lists, a lot more of them stick with simply 2.

 alextroy wrote:
Don't get your hopes up, unless you are talking GCS of bugs. According to the rumors from Vigilus Day, there are only formations for the forces at Vigilus. No Tyranids, just Genestealer Cults.

Could we start reprimanding or doing something about comments like this? This is ridiculous, is old school "flaming", adds nothing to the thread, and makes implications that have zero basis in fact.

 Tamwulf wrote:

 buddha wrote:
Formations 'lite" are back it seems. At least this time you need to CPs to pay to enjoy the special rules. Seems like a good balance.

Not really. It will just encourage MOAR SOUP to get more CP's to pay for all the new bonuses. These are even worse then formations form 7th because there is no drawback to them at all. The only limit is how many CP/turn you can generate.

You may not be wrong about how these ultimately end up functioning, and it's a concern that I certainly share. But right now (and this is only a limited view since we've only got confirmation of the IF specialist detachment), paying 1 CP just to access the abilities is still a drawback, (I'll obviously grant that if you put everything into a 1 CP detachment, it pays for itself, though as things currently exist that's 1 CP I'd be expecting to use on something else). It's not an enormous one, but there is a cost just to use it. Right now, SM are in a weird spot where they both have a little trouble generating a ton of CP on their own (though they can still generate a modest amount), but also don't always have a ton of stratagems to actually use their CP on beyond an expected handful (relics, command rerolls, fighting twice - all general use stuff, plus a few that are more SM specific). I actually think the IF specialist detachment looks pretty good as things currently stand, but it doesn't look so obviously strong that it would really merit bringing in, say, the loyal 32 just to make use of it.

It's also worth noting that since these are based around detachments, it might (hypothetically) make using soup a little tougher by gently steering you towards the use of a second detachment beyond your basic battalion. For example, the IF specialist detachment looks geared towards the use of either a spearhead or a vanguard. You could obviously get still get plenty of dreads, centurions, and vindicators into a battalion, especially in the elites slot for the dreads, and for assault centurions, though the specialist detachment is maybe slightly less geared towards them if still applicable and possible to use. But lets say that you wanted to use both vindicators and Centurion Devs. You can only get 3 heavy support choices in a battalion, and if you're building a whole list with this stratagem in mind, it seems like you'd probably want the option of a fourth unit, especially if you're bringing both of these types of units rather than just one. That's a gentle nudge in the direction of Spearhead detachment. And, hey, maybe it's not quite enough of one, but it wasn't lost on me that it's more likely to steer you towards using a second detachment in addition to the battalion you're probably already taking.

To give some context, I play Dark Angels, and we basically have confirmation that there's a Ravenwing specialist detachment coming. This, to me, is pretty obviously going to live in the outrider detachment that I'm almost always already taking in addition to my battalion when I'm making a Ravenwing list. While I can, theoretically, try to squeeze everything into the fast attack battalion slots (and in the elite slots to probably a far lesser extent than the above IF detachment) , it's probably not going to be quite enough space to take the things that I'd actually want to really maximize whatever benefits the detachment will give.

Again, I actually don't think you're wrong about the risks here, and I think we might see them manifested down the road, maybe even in a few weeks (or, heck, maybe in the next day or two when they reveal what another detachment looks like). But I shared your concerns about the pitfalls here, and so far this IF detachment doesn't strike me as immediately likely to turn into some sort of meta-busting soupy terror. Furthermore, it actually looks like it's strong enough to be fun and interesting to use in an all-IF list, but not so strong that it would make it a must-take soup addition.

Words I'm sure to eat now that I've been foolish enough to write them down, haha.

Indominuts Crusade some details are readable. The turning Intercessors into snipers in interesting.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Karol wrote:
Will all armies get some sort of formation general formation, like lets say a siege detachment that can be used by all marine armies that can take the proper units for it?

Or will they be limited to 1-2 per every faction?

If its as bad as 7th Ed - not all armies will even get a single formation, some will get loads and some will be totally broken.

Ok thanks. I guess it is time to pray for 1-2 uber formation. How does GW normally balance a faction geting no formations by the way, do they let them take other faction stuff or something like that? I haven't played in 7th ed, so am not sure how formations work.

Karol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Karol wrote:
Will all armies get some sort of formation general formation, like lets say a siege detachment that can be used by all marine armies that can take the proper units for it?

Or will they be limited to 1-2 per every faction?

If its as bad as 7th Ed - not all armies will even get a single formation, some will get loads and some will be totally broken.

Ok thanks. I guess it is time to pray for 1-2 uber formation. How does GW normally balance a faction geting no formations by the way, do they let them take other faction stuff or something like that? I haven't played in 7th ed, so am not sure how formations work.

Who knows for sure how GW does balance but likley they have a few drinks together at bugman's brewery, get an idea, and go ya, that seems about right in terms of balance. Poof, done. Results may vary.

I see no issue with this. It's literally just a few new stratagems, a warlord trait, and a relic. It's nothing for free, and most importantly this one in particular includes fluffy units (centurions, vindicators, etc.).

This is the kind of thing I'd have rather seen in the codex personally. As you can see it doesn't take up much space. It would have been a nice way of putting chapters into the codex. It is a nice simple format for adding chapters to White Dwarf as well. It's not somebody getting anything for free, so that's fine by me.

However, in typical GW fashion, I do fully expect some of these to be broken - but that's been happening in the codices anyway so I don't see much change there. As a narrative gamer I applaud this kind of stuff and would love to see more of it.