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.

 Burnage wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I didn't think I needed to specify on this but...All the rules flayed skull + power from pain get are good or at the very least - they are other army traits.

Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions (just like my Levi/ulthwe comparison) only prove my point. Traits aren't balanced. Its the first place to start when balancing this game IMO. Because they are included in the base cost of everything.

I agree with your broad point that there's an imbalance between subfactions, but it's not due to traits alone. You need to look at the whole package - Ultramarines might have a weak Chapter Trait, but getting access to Gulliman is a huge advantage. Black Heart have a pretty lackluster trait but their relic and stratagem are both incredible.

It's not as simple as "this trait is stronger than this other trait, therefore this subfaction is better".

Nope, there are too many other interactions.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dont forget a Troupe Master is 70pts base, and a Succubus is 20pts base

Where can I get these 20pt Succubi?

 vipoid wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dont forget a Troupe Master is 70pts base, and a Succubus is 20pts base

Where can I get these 20pt Succubi?

50pts base. Post would make sense if the word "cheaper" were included.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I didn't think I needed to specify on this but...All the rules flayed skull + power from pain get are good or at the very least - they are other army traits.

Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions (just like my Levi/ulthwe comparison) only prove my point. Traits aren't balanced. Its the first place to start when balancing this game IMO. Because they are included in the base cost of everything.

I'm sorry, I don't know all the faction traits of all the armies - but which one was it that has "Fearless only on the last few turns" as their one and only trait again?

I mean, you're saying "Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions [...]" as the exact next sentence after complaining about something with "Fearless" with a "But only on the last couple turns" condition to make it worse.

 whembly wrote:
I despise the current detachment rules. No... what I really despise is this dependency to maximize the CP via detachment so that you can pay for strategems, relics, field commanders, specialist detachments.

I actually miss the old formations in the previous editions and I didn't think they were broken. At least it was straightforward.

Some of the old formations were utterly dumb (Riptide Wing) and are not missed at all in any way. I say that as a mostly T'au player.

As for the need to have huge amounts of CP, I think a lot of us jumped on that bandwagon especially when our codexes dropped but I for one have rather got past that now. I won my last tournament with a list that had 5CP, it was honestly a lot more fun and having a focus on the models on the table having the special rules was better to play. I might play that list again in the next tournament or maybe one of my others with more CP but whatever my choice it will be because that is the list I fancy playing that day rather than because I think one approach is inherently better than another.

Obviously having more CP is better if all else is equal but all else will not be equal and I think a high CP list is just one valid choice among many. If you despise the need to maximise CP then see if you can come up with a list that does not need all those CP.

man, when was last aprils FAQ released? its getting late in the month now

 davou wrote:
man, when was last aprils FAQ released? its getting late in the month now

3 weeks after Adepticon.

 whembly wrote:
I actually miss the old formations in the previous editions and I didn't think they were broken. At least it was straightforward.

I disagree about them not being broken. Most of the ones in the second half of 7th were utterly ridiculous.

That said, I did like the structure of the 7.5 detachments (like the Necron Decurion). I thought they encouraged quite a good mix of units.

Of course, the downside is that you often couldn't include specific units on their own. e.g. if you wanted to add Destroyers, you couldn't just add a single unit - you had to add an entire Destroyer Wing. Or if you wanted Triarch Praetorians, you had to include (IIRC) 2 units of them *and* a Triarch Stalker.

 whembly wrote:
I despise the current detachment rules. No... what I really despise is this dependency to maximize the CP via detachment so that you can pay for strategems, relics, field commanders, specialist detachments.

I actually miss the old formations in the previous editions and I didn't think they were broken. At least it was straightforward.

Formations killed 7th Edition and almost buried 40k under a mountain of ridicule and opprobrium. Ridiculous system that promoted the use of armies that looked nothing like armies.

At least the Castellan and Guard Battery is genuinely a fluffy force. And it'd be perfectly fine if Knights were costed appropriately and the Super Heavy Aux slot was disallowed relics etc.

The issue is not the Detachment Mechanic, the issue is the CP Mechanic.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 davou wrote:
man, when was last aprils FAQ released? its getting late in the month now

3 weeks after Adepticon.

For those of us not in the know, when was Adepticon?

-

Regarding 7E Formations: I always thought the structure for them was a great concept as it made you take certain units that were 'usually' fluffy and you got a bonus for doing so.
The issue was that those "tax" units became less and less common and the bonuses were disproportionate to what you got, i.e already good units getting more bonuses

8E detachments feel like the same structure, but instead of having to take units X,y and Z, you get slot options instead. The bonus is still there, in the form of CPs and Strats, though
So arguably, what made 7E a big mess if back in force for 8E, but in a different form.
Remove CPs from detachments and you can still have that structure without the abuse. Giving CPs based on army size would be far better.

Heck, what if CPs could be purchased? like 50pts per CP? Now you can have a 2000pt army with the exact number of CPs you want, but have to give up units to pay for them
Just a thought, admittedly not fully baked if anyone sees holes in the suggestion

-

Last April faq was 3 weeks after adepticon which will place it at the coming monday 22nd. Since that is Easter it may be later, it may not. Who knows.

@Galef That is how they've set up AoS. They also have a FoC which scales with Game size. They have the older style Formations from 7th but you still have to adhere to the FoC and have made them cost points.

CPs can also be purchased at 50 points per point as you alluded to.

Fortification love.

Take the Fortress of Redemption.

1. 30 transport cap.... but can't take more than 1 squad.
2. A degrading stat-line starting at 5+ BS meaning that at 1/3rd of its health and below, it has 7+ to hit with the silo, 8+ against ground targets (with the Icarus).
3. A pathetic missile *silo*.
4. Costs more than a Land Raider.
5. Armour 3+ on a fortress meaning that against what the enemy fires at it, it'll have at best a 6+ save.

 Galef wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 davou wrote:
man, when was last aprils FAQ released? its getting late in the month now

3 weeks after Adepticon.

For those of us not in the know, when was Adepticon?

3 weeks ago.

Given that Monday is a public holiday in the UK and that they will want the social media well staffed when they put the FAQ out I would think Tuesday is the first possible day it will come out. Also I would not really expect it to come out while the survey is still open, from their point of view they are unlikely to want those to overlap.

 vipoid wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I actually miss the old formations in the previous editions and I didn't think they were broken. At least it was straightforward.

I disagree about them not being broken. Most of the ones in the second half of 7th were utterly ridiculous.

That said, I did like the structure of the 7.5 detachments (like the Necron Decurion). I thought they encouraged quite a good mix of units.

Of course, the downside is that you often couldn't include specific units on their own. e.g. if you wanted to add Destroyers, you couldn't just add a single unit - you had to add an entire Destroyer Wing. Or if you wanted Triarch Praetorians, you had to include (IIRC) 2 units of them *and* a Triarch Stalker.

The biggest issue I had with Formations was the complete lack of balance in them. Necrons with Decurion were good, SM with 400pts of free transports was really good, Riptide wing was ridiculous, Eldars were just ridiculous before formations and formations just enhanced how broken they were.

But what about IG, what about Chaos and what about Orkz? I remember the Ork super formation was around 1100pts naked basically and the benefit? You can Waaagh every turn, which was kind of nice but mostly useless. Compare that with the Space Marines, Orkz who can advance and charge in the same turn vs 400pts of free razorbacks, which sounds better to you? Or hell the weakest of the good formations the Decurion, orkz able to charge every turn or a 4+ RP? I would say a 50% chance to bring back your models is a bit better then being able to charge on the same turn you ran, especially when the formation requirements were so heavy that it made the formation basically useless.

I like the detachment system, the problem is it gives a clear advantage to books with good HQ and Troop options.

With that said I agree with posters saying you don't "need" as many CP as some people think you do. There are definitely certain armies that don't have good/auto-use stratagems, so front loading isn't possible. If you are into turn 4 and still have say 5 CP left because there was nothing to spend it on, I'd question whether that was the most efficient way to build a list. By contrast if you have burned through 15 CP by the end of turn 2, that's probably had a major impact on the game.

Tyel wrote:
I like the detachment system, the problem is it gives a clear advantage to books with good HQ and Troop options.

With that said I agree with posters saying you don't "need" as many CP as some people think you do. There are definitely certain armies that don't have good/auto-use stratagems, so front loading isn't possible. If you are into turn 4 and still have say 5 CP left because there was nothing to spend it on, I'd question whether that was the most efficient way to build a list. By contrast if you have burned through 15 CP by the end of turn 2, that's probably had a major impact on the game.

If you build a list that relies on stratagems to get its job done you need to fear Vect and the 4-armed emperor, in addition to list-building for sufficient CP to pop that probably expensive stratagem on multiple turns. Even a Callidus could ruin your strategy, and she is available to something like half the armies in a typical tournament and they only have to pick her at game-time. Between Aeldari, GSC and Imperium you should expect a stratagem-dependent list to face obstacles in the current game.

The other side to this is that if you do not build your list around needing to use expensive stratagems you have no fear of Vect, or the GSC. If you build a list that does not rely on CP then stratagem-denial is pretty much wasted on you, so your opponent probably ends up with a sub-optimal list having squeezed in the ability to hinder something that is peripheral to you. It does feel a little more like playing in the Index era but that is OK once you adjust. If you care little for CP you can then choose your units based on what will work best on the table rather than having to go with massed troops and HQ because that is what generates CP.

If your army is well suited to high-CP builds to fuel great stratagems then by all means go for it and build that way. Some other armies really do not seem to benefit so much from that approach so I would say look around for other ways to build those armies that works to their strengths. Nearly all the armies[1] in the game do have strength somewhere you need to either play to that strength or decide the army just does not fit your playstyle preference.

[1] Mandatory moment of sympathy for GK.players

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I like the detachment system, the problem is it gives a clear advantage to books with good HQ and Troop options.

With that said I agree with posters saying you don't "need" as many CP as some people think you do. There are definitely certain armies that don't have good/auto-use stratagems, so front loading isn't possible. If you are into turn 4 and still have say 5 CP left because there was nothing to spend it on, I'd question whether that was the most efficient way to build a list. By contrast if you have burned through 15 CP by the end of turn 2, that's probably had a major impact on the game.

If you build a list that relies on stratagems to get its job done you need to fear Vect and the 4-armed emperor, in addition to list-building for sufficient CP to pop that probably expensive stratagem on multiple turns. Even a Callidus could ruin your strategy, and she is available to something like half the armies in a typical tournament and they only have to pick her at game-time. Between Aeldari, GSC and Imperium you should expect a stratagem-dependent list to face obstacles in the current game.

The other side to this is that if you do not build your list around needing to use expensive stratagems you have no fear of Vect, or the GSC. If you build a list that does not rely on CP then stratagem-denial is pretty much wasted on you, so your opponent probably ends up with a sub-optimal list having squeezed in the ability to hinder something that is peripheral to you. It does feel a little more like playing in the Index era but that is OK once you adjust. If you care little for CP you can then choose your units based on what will work best on the table rather than having to go with massed troops and HQ because that is what generates CP.

If your army is well suited to high-CP builds to fuel great stratagems then by all means go for it and build that way. Some other armies really do not seem to benefit so much from that approach so I would say look around for other ways to build those armies that works to their strengths. Nearly all the armies[1] in the game do have strength somewhere you need to either play to that strength or decide the army just does not fit your playstyle preference.

[1] Mandatory moment of sympathy for GK.players

This is the thing that really shouldn't be a problem, however some units are clearly points costed, as if they have unlimited access to strategums, while others are given discounts for poor strategums.

As you say you can buils lists that really don't care about CP or lists that hing on it. The problem is the power balance is way out for some of these builds.

But this also translates into a number of feel bad moments when say marines do take a infantry heavy army and gain nothing like the boost for the points investment compaired to other codex's.

Ice_can wrote:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I like the detachment system, the problem is it gives a clear advantage to books with good HQ and Troop options.

With that said I agree with posters saying you don't "need" as many CP as some people think you do. There are definitely certain armies that don't have good/auto-use stratagems, so front loading isn't possible. If you are into turn 4 and still have say 5 CP left because there was nothing to spend it on, I'd question whether that was the most efficient way to build a list. By contrast if you have burned through 15 CP by the end of turn 2, that's probably had a major impact on the game.

If you build a list that relies on stratagems to get its job done you need to fear Vect and the 4-armed emperor, in addition to list-building for sufficient CP to pop that probably expensive stratagem on multiple turns. Even a Callidus could ruin your strategy, and she is available to something like half the armies in a typical tournament and they only have to pick her at game-time. Between Aeldari, GSC and Imperium you should expect a stratagem-dependent list to face obstacles in the current game.

The other side to this is that if you do not build your list around needing to use expensive stratagems you have no fear of Vect, or the GSC. If you build a list that does not rely on CP then stratagem-denial is pretty much wasted on you, so your opponent probably ends up with a sub-optimal list having squeezed in the ability to hinder something that is peripheral to you. It does feel a little more like playing in the Index era but that is OK once you adjust. If you care little for CP you can then choose your units based on what will work best on the table rather than having to go with massed troops and HQ because that is what generates CP.

If your army is well suited to high-CP builds to fuel great stratagems then by all means go for it and build that way. Some other armies really do not seem to benefit so much from that approach so I would say look around for other ways to build those armies that works to their strengths. Nearly all the armies[1] in the game do have strength somewhere you need to either play to that strength or decide the army just does not fit your playstyle preference.

[1] Mandatory moment of sympathy for GK.players

This is the thing that really shouldn't be a problem, however some units are clearly points costed, as if they have unlimited access to strategums, while others are given discounts for poor strategums.

As you say you can buils lists that really don't care about CP or lists that hing on it. The problem is the power balance is way out for some of these builds.

But this also translates into a number of feel bad moments when say marines do take a infantry heavy army and gain nothing like the boost for the points investment compaired to other codex's.

Well Chaos Renegades now can with the RC trait reach Guard levels of CP and get a usefull trait out of it. That is atleast something, but frankly bit ridicoulus that chaos can pull that whilest regular SM can go die in a hole comparatively....

SemperMortis wrote:

The biggest issue I had with Formations was the complete lack of balance in them. Necrons with Decurion were good, SM with 400pts of free transports was really good, Riptide wing was ridiculous, Eldars were just ridiculous before formations and formations just enhanced how broken they were.

But what about IG, what about Chaos and what about Orkz? I remember the Ork super formation was around 1100pts naked basically and the benefit? You can Waaagh every turn, which was kind of nice but mostly useless. Compare that with the Space Marines, Orkz who can advance and charge in the same turn vs 400pts of free razorbacks, which sounds better to you? Or hell the weakest of the good formations the Decurion, orkz able to charge every turn or a 4+ RP? I would say a 50% chance to bring back your models is a bit better then being able to charge on the same turn you ran, especially when the formation requirements were so heavy that it made the formation basically useless.

I think the main problem was that they completely changed Formations half way through 7th. So all the armies released prior to that (DE, Orks, Chaos etc.) had piddling bonuses, whilst Necrons, SMs etc. had amazing bonuses.

Whilst the bonuses were probably too strong, I at least liked the format of the super-formations that Necrons and such had.

 vipoid wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

The biggest issue I had with Formations was the complete lack of balance in them. Necrons with Decurion were good, SM with 400pts of free transports was really good, Riptide wing was ridiculous, Eldars were just ridiculous before formations and formations just enhanced how broken they were.

But what about IG, what about Chaos and what about Orkz? I remember the Ork super formation was around 1100pts naked basically and the benefit? You can Waaagh every turn, which was kind of nice but mostly useless. Compare that with the Space Marines, Orkz who can advance and charge in the same turn vs 400pts of free razorbacks, which sounds better to you? Or hell the weakest of the good formations the Decurion, orkz able to charge every turn or a 4+ RP? I would say a 50% chance to bring back your models is a bit better then being able to charge on the same turn you ran, especially when the formation requirements were so heavy that it made the formation basically useless.

I think the main problem was that they completely changed Formations half way through 7th. So all the armies released prior to that (DE, Orks, Chaos etc.) had piddling bonuses, whilst Necrons, SMs etc. had amazing bonuses.

Whilst the bonuses were probably too strong, I at least liked the format of the super-formations that Necrons and such had.

Except orkz got not 1 but 2 additional books to give them more formations because of how bad the original ones were. The ork super formation was in these which were released AFTER Necrons, SM, Tau and such. They were unarguably the worst formations in the game. And I can prove they were terrible because nobody can remember them but everyone remembers most other factions big formation.

Tyel wrote:
I like the detachment system, the problem is it gives a clear advantage to books with good HQ and Troop options.

With that said I agree with posters saying you don't "need" as many CP as some people think you do. There are definitely certain armies that don't have good/auto-use stratagems, so front loading isn't possible. If you are into turn 4 and still have say 5 CP left because there was nothing to spend it on, I'd question whether that was the most efficient way to build a list. By contrast if you have burned through 15 CP by the end of turn 2, that's probably had a major impact on the game.

Unless you play an army that requires CP to function. Orkz without stratagems are bottom tier. Take away the loota bomb because it requires 5 CP a turn to function and 1 CP at the start of turn 1 to combine 2 mobz together and its crap. Get rid of the SSAG because that requires 2 CP as well and 2CP a turn to shoot twice, get rid of Deep striking units like Battlewagonz and Nautz. Really quickly the ork codex is left with a bunch of highly over priced units that can't damage things very well and have a significantly smaller chance to actually reach combat. Generally speaking I take 3 Battalions to tournaments. so 18CP, I spend 2 CP right off the bat to get the SSAG, I spend 4 more CP to put 2 units in reserve to deep strike,so before the game begins I am down to 12CP. Turn 1 I mob up lootas, give them Dakka on 5s and shoot twice, now I am down to 7CP. the SSAG shoots twice as well and either he or the lootas need a CP reroll so thats 3 more CP gone. Turn 2 I am down to 4 CP, and thats only if my opponents doesn't require me to use grot shields to save my loota bomb from getting killed. I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I didn't think I needed to specify on this but...All the rules flayed skull + power from pain get are good or at the very least - they are other army traits.

Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions (just like my Levi/ulthwe comparison) only prove my point. Traits aren't balanced. Its the first place to start when balancing this game IMO. Because they are included in the base cost of everything.

I'm sorry, I don't know all the faction traits of all the armies - but which one was it that has "Fearless only on the last few turns" as their one and only trait again?

I mean, you're saying "Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions [...]" as the exact next sentence after complaining about something with "Fearless" with a "But only on the last couple turns" condition to make it worse.

You do realize DE start with FNP from PFP on turn 1. This is an army trait for several armies (It is actually one of the better ones). Yeah sure they don't get a rule like ATSKNF or battle focus but these traits are not equal to a trait like flayed skull. In addition PFP grants you even more stuff as turns pass. When in fact - they already had more than what another army had starting turn 1. It doesn't matter if the next 4 turns of free buffs aren't great - it's just more free stuff. Plus - the buffs are actually pretty dang good from power from pain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I actually miss the old formations in the previous editions and I didn't think they were broken. At least it was straightforward.

I disagree about them not being broken. Most of the ones in the second half of 7th were utterly ridiculous.

That said, I did like the structure of the 7.5 detachments (like the Necron Decurion). I thought they encouraged quite a good mix of units.

Of course, the downside is that you often couldn't include specific units on their own. e.g. if you wanted to add Destroyers, you couldn't just add a single unit - you had to add an entire Destroyer Wing. Or if you wanted Triarch Praetorians, you had to include (IIRC) 2 units of them *and* a Triarch Stalker.

The biggest issue I had with Formations was the complete lack of balance in them. Necrons with Decurion were good, SM with 400pts of free transports was really good, Riptide wing was ridiculous, Eldars were just ridiculous before formations and formations just enhanced how broken they were.

But what about IG, what about Chaos and what about Orkz? I remember the Ork super formation was around 1100pts naked basically and the benefit? You can Waaagh every turn, which was kind of nice but mostly useless. Compare that with the Space Marines, Orkz who can advance and charge in the same turn vs 400pts of free razorbacks, which sounds better to you? Or hell the weakest of the good formations the Decurion, orkz able to charge every turn or a 4+ RP? I would say a 50% chance to bring back your models is a bit better then being able to charge on the same turn you ran, especially when the formation requirements were so heavy that it made the formation basically useless.

I like the spend CP for formation bonus concept. Heres the thing. You first have to balance CP to do that.

Lemondish wrote:

I see your ultramarines trait claim and raise you word bearers.

Speakong of Word Bearers, I want to see them get the ability to take Possessed as troops. It'd make the Daemonkin detachment actually playable in their hands while not breaking the game.

I liked the concept of formations, but felt like it wasn't executed right (and I played Necrons and SM in 7th, so it's not bias). I feel like Age of Sigmar has done them better by requiring you to maintain HQ/Troop minimums (Leader/Battleline in AoS terms) and costing points. If those two things had been true in 40k, formations would have been a better mechanic.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I didn't think I needed to specify on this but...All the rules flayed skull + power from pain get are good or at the very least - they are other army traits.

Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions (just like my Levi/ulthwe comparison) only prove my point. Traits aren't balanced. Its the first place to start when balancing this game IMO. Because they are included in the base cost of everything.

I'm sorry, I don't know all the faction traits of all the armies - but which one was it that has "Fearless only on the last few turns" as their one and only trait again?

I mean, you're saying "Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions [...]" as the exact next sentence after complaining about something with "Fearless" with a "But only on the last couple turns" condition to make it worse.

You do realize DE start with FNP from PFP on turn 1. This is an army trait for several armies (It is actually one of the better ones). Yeah sure they don't get a rule like ATSKNF or battle focus but these traits are not equal to a trait like flayed skull. In addition PFP grants you even more stuff as turns pass. When in fact - they already had more than what another army had starting turn 1. It doesn't matter if the next 4 turns of free buffs aren't great - it's just more free stuff. Plus - the buffs are actually pretty dang good from power from pain.

PfP is pretty worthless for Flayed Skull. Again, there's my previous argument that since any unit with PfP has to be off the table to get the bonus from Flayed Skull, it's less about having both at once and more about trading one for the other.

Second, the turn 2 and 3 bonuses are by and large melee focused. Why would I ever want GEQ infantry in combat? A fully roided up kabalite squad doesn't even kill a single marine in combat, on average.

Finally, the bonuses themselves matter less than the unit the bonuses go to. There is a difference between a T3 5+ W1 model getting a 6+++ and a Marine or Ork.

By your logic here, Snakebite Boyz should be pretty overpowered. They have a 6++, reroll to charge, always hit on 6's, can get Ld30, and get +1 attacks if their unit size is large enough, Turn 1 . That's better than PfP and they get those bonuses turn one! Surely, one look at the Tournament listings shows the overwhelming domination of such a powerful combo, Snakebite Boyz.

You can't look at traits and rules in a vacuum, what units they're on matter too.

SemperMortis wrote:
I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.

That sounds like a "you" problem.

Lemondish wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.

That sounds like a "you" problem.

yeah, lol. I don't think I've ever played with double digits CPs, not sure what that would feel like

 EnTyme wrote:
I liked the concept of formations, but felt like it wasn't executed right (and I played Necrons and SM in 7th, so it's not bias). I feel like Age of Sigmar has done them better by requiring you to maintain HQ/Troop minimums (Leader/Battleline in AoS terms) and costing points. If those two things had been true in 40k, formations would have been a better mechanic.

Yep I agree with that, even heresy did the "formations" better with restrictions on what can and cannot be used to make a themed list for that army.

Lemondish wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.

That sounds like a "you" problem.

No, that sounds like a problem with the ork army. without CP most of our competitive units are trash. Look no further then Lootas to see that point proven correct. Without CP you are spending 170pts for a unit of Boyz armed with autocannons that hit on 5s and have D3 shots, not bad right? except that they are 17pts and are still T4 with a 6+ save. I can already here people saying nonsense like "put them in cover" Cool, now its a 17pt model with a 5+ save. So if you buy 10 of them you have 170pts sunk into on average 20 Auto Cannon shots, hitting on 5s, rerolling 6s and 1s (badmoon) gives you about 8-9 hits, against a T7 vehicle you get 4 wounds, they get a 4+ save so you do 4dmg. Not exactly impressive. and on the return swing they melt as soon as you look at them.

 bullyboy wrote:


yeah, lol. I don't think I've ever played with double digits CPs, not sure what that would feel like

it feels like not enough honestly with the Ork army. Go back to the loota bomb. Turn 1 you spend 1CP to mob up, 2 CP to dakka on 5s, 2 CP to shoot twice and 1 CP to grot shield them, you will probably need a CP reroll for shots as well. So to make our 1 unit good we just spent 7CP, our other good ranged unit is the SSAG, so 2CP just to field the stupid thing and then 2 CP to have it shoot twice. So turn 1 you just used 11 of your 18 CP. that means turn 2 you are completely out of CP.

SemperMortis wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I actually miss the old formations in the previous editions and I didn't think they were broken. At least it was straightforward.

I disagree about them not being broken. Most of the ones in the second half of 7th were utterly ridiculous.

That said, I did like the structure of the 7.5 detachments (like the Necron Decurion). I thought they encouraged quite a good mix of units.

Of course, the downside is that you often couldn't include specific units on their own. e.g. if you wanted to add Destroyers, you couldn't just add a single unit - you had to add an entire Destroyer Wing. Or if you wanted Triarch Praetorians, you had to include (IIRC) 2 units of them *and* a Triarch Stalker.

The biggest issue I had with Formations was the complete lack of balance in them. Necrons with Decurion were good, SM with 400pts of free transports was really good, Riptide wing was ridiculous, Eldars were just ridiculous before formations and formations just enhanced how broken they were.

But what about IG, what about Chaos and what about Orkz? I remember the Ork super formation was around 1100pts naked basically and the benefit? You can Waaagh every turn, which was kind of nice but mostly useless. Compare that with the Space Marines, Orkz who can advance and charge in the same turn vs 400pts of free razorbacks, which sounds better to you? Or hell the weakest of the good formations the Decurion, orkz able to charge every turn or a 4+ RP? I would say a 50% chance to bring back your models is a bit better then being able to charge on the same turn you ran, especially when the formation requirements were so heavy that it made the formation basically useless.

As a Necron Player, the Decurion was the best way to really get a good Necron Army going on the Table, it was the best way to highlight the Necrons fluff where they just do not die with actual reanimation protocols. The Destroyer Cult formation was great as well.

As a Khorne Daemonkin player the Detachment that helped the Blood Tithe chart was a fun and interactive way of expressing "Khorne cares not where the blood flows." 8th Edition destroyed this style of play by dropping it completely and tried to apply it via the Stratagem system, which just does not work to emulate it at all.