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 was wondering how people would feel about somethings from Forge World being given a pass into standard Codex formations? Now I don't mean a free for all though.

I'm using Marines as an example as they are my main force but I'd love to see this with any of the other factions.

Predators, Whirlwind Scorpius & Vindicator Laser Destroyers are allowed in an Armoured Task Force (gaining 1-3 per choice). Those with the Relic rule are limited to one Relic unit per Task Force and they can not be part of the minimum 3 tank units.

Land Raider Achilies, Prometheus, Helios and Proteus as well as Sicaran Tanks can be taken in a Landraider Spear head.

Forge World Contemptors and other standard Dreadnought Variants gain the 1-3 per unit option and get a straight swap in to any place where Dreadnought can currently be taken. Chaplains can be taken instead of one other Dreadnought in a unit of Venerables.

0-1 Dreadnought units can be replaced with a Leviathan unit or Deredeo unit per full company taken and only within one of the Demi Companies slots.

Finally, Spartans and the Super Heavies can be taken as a support choice per unit (maybe some restriction such as can not be the minimum required choice)

Do you think this could work? How would you do this for other factions?

I wouldn't. That doesn't seem reasonable.

I would make you provide an explanation for the switch and "The forgeworld version is stronger" would result in me giving a long, blank stare.

There are background reasons why forgeworld units may be fielded, and it depends on the situation and what you are trying to bring. Talk it over with your opponent when you arrange the game (do not just spring this on them when you show up to play) and get their consent before trying anything.

 the Signless wrote:
I would make you provide an explanation for the switch and "The forgeworld version is stronger" would result in me giving a long, blank stare.

What about "this unit is so cool so I'd like to be able to use it with my normal list"?

I think they should be added to the formations, GW and FW need their heads banging together really.

Certain things will need tweaking obviously, but I've no problem with people having the options to field their cool units within their lists, without being restricted by CADs or forced to go unbound.

However, it shouldn't be a free for all, and shouldn't be an excuse to ramp up the power levels of already strong formations and detachments. Let's face it though, a lot of the FW space marine stuff is fairly overpriced points wise these days for what it does.

Named FW characters for instance should be able to be at the head of a Gladius or Demi company.

What really needs to happen is a joint effort between GW and FW to get all their ducks in a row so that when 8th edition hits next year, that all the Imperial Armour books are already updated and ready to roll out the doors with 8th edition (and hopefully formation) friendly army lists in them.

Its simple, does formation X allow unit Y in it ?
If yes -> Go ahead.
If no -> NO!. Just play unbound instead and stop fishing for free benefits of the formation you power hungry cheater.

I would say possibly. I've seen an alleged email where FW said it was okay to put the Y'vahrah into tau formations. Which means Y'vahrah wings would thankfully become a thing in the ITC.

I hope they give us a definitive answer in fires of cyraxus.

 Melissia wrote:

 the Signless wrote:
I would make you provide an explanation for the switch and "The forgeworld version is stronger" would result in me giving a long, blank stare.

What about "this unit is so cool so I'd like to be able to use it with my normal list"?

This isn't a bad idea, but then it could always be taken like "Why can't I have a single non-DT Land Raider in my perfectly bound Gladius?" or "I want four Stormsurges in my Hunter Cadre even though I don't have any of the requirements."

OP *could* take them, but it wouldn't be Battleforged if they did.

This isn't a question about you being able to field your cool toys or not. You are allowed to do that. This is a question about you getting free formation buffs or not. Any excuse not to give you free rhino's in a rhino spam list is a good one. So no.

This comes down on a case-by-case basis for me.

For example if you run a Red Scorpions force and want to replace a captain in one of your demi-companies with Cullin (I think that's the Red Scorpion captain?) I would have no problems with it even though it's not in the codex. This is perfectly understandable.

If you want to field a full Armored Task Force with Deimos Preds and such, then I would be raising more than just an eyebrow at you.

 Gamgee wrote:
I would say possibly. I've seen an alleged email where FW said it was okay to put the Y'vahrah into tau formations. Which means Y'vahrah wings would thankfully become a thing in the ITC.

I hope they give us a definitive answer in fires of cyraxus.

The horror.... the horror..... I can only imagine an Y'vahra wing. I own two of them, and even that said, I would be horrified to put MOST opponents through dealing with three of them, potentially at BS5 all on their own... double-firing.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
I would say possibly. I've seen an alleged email where FW said it was okay to put the Y'vahrah into tau formations. Which means Y'vahrah wings would thankfully become a thing in the ITC.

I hope they give us a definitive answer in fires of cyraxus.

The horror.... the horror..... I can only imagine an Y'vahra wing. I own two of them, and even that said, I would be horrified to put MOST opponents through dealing with three of them, potentially at BS5 all on their own... double-firing.

It's just what Tau needs in the ITC though. In there it would merely be good enough to get them competitive again. I would be abhorred if I seen it used it anywhere else other than the most serious tournaments though.

I don't think that it's such a hot idea. The formations are designed for the units that are included. Without specific rules allowing them to be used in the formation, ala the Death Masque units, which have rules that the named units can be used in place of the generic ones in formations. Not all Dreads and tanks are created equal

The only sorta balancing thing about formations is the limitations they impose. By switching out for different units would remove any pretense of balance. This tho is really some thing you should ask who ever you play against.

 Melissia wrote:

 the Signless wrote:
I would make you provide an explanation for the switch and "The forgeworld version is stronger" would result in me giving a long, blank stare.

What about "this unit is so cool so I'd like to be able to use it with my normal list"?

So why not just take it in a CAD if it's all about being cool?

In one of the strongest codexs in the game with some of the best formations in the game? No chance. Maybe allowing that for low tier armies like orks might be alright, but otherwise just adding more gas to the fire.

Case-by-case. Putting a Whirlwind Scorpius in the Suppression Force would be absurd, putting Shadow Spectres in an Aspect Host would be fine.

Yes, it should be allowed where appropriate. FW units aren't excluded from formations because of balance concerns, they're excluded because GW codex writers have strict orders to never even mention anything except Citadel™ Multi™-part™ Plastic™ Miniatures™ that customers can buy in their local Games™ Workshop™ Hobby™ Center™. The rules are to be nothing more than marketing material for the model kits found in the GW retail stores. That's why you have stupid stuff like DFTS hyping up a transport helicopter (which can't even fire at full BS against flyers) as an elite dogfighting unit instead of the Thunderbolt or Lightning. And it results in FW units being excluded from formations even when they would make rules and/or thematic sense.

So, IMO if there's a formation that includes a close equivalent to a FW unit it should be allowed. For example, the IG artillery formation should be allowed to include a Medusa instead of a Basilisk since they're the same exact unit except for what gun they carry (and the Medusa even used to be in the codex!). Same thing with taking the FW Predators in the Predator formation, it's the exact same unit except for the arbitrary FW/GW split. With something like the Sicaran in a Land Raider formation I'd be a lot more reluctant to allow it, a Sicaran isn't really comparable to a Land Raider and it feels more like asking "can I take this unit of crisis suits with my Land Raiders" rather than fixing the formation to include something that shouldn't have been omitted in the first place. And in any case I'm going to be keeping an eye on the power level of your army, if you're blatantly saying "can I add these FW units to my formation" because you've figured out something overpowered to exploit then my answer is going to be "take a CAD".

DaPino wrote:
So why not just take it in a CAD if it's all about being cool?

Because taking a CAD often means breaking the theme of your army, and paying the HQ + troops tax with units you wouldn't have considered except as a prerequisite to what you really want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldzoggy wrote:
Just play unbound instead and stop fishing for free benefits of the formation you power hungry cheater.

Unbound is not an option for most people.

DaPino wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 the Signless wrote:
I would make you provide an explanation for the switch and "The forgeworld version is stronger" would result in me giving a long, blank stare.

What about "this unit is so cool so I'd like to be able to use it with my normal list"?

So why not just take it in a CAD if it's all about being cool?

Because with formations (or rather, a formation, IIRC) giving free transports, it's actually impossible to take certain combinations of units without taking the formations. If the formations ONLY gave bonuses, rather than points reductions, it'd be different.

Amongst the other complaints that Peregrine mentioned above.

I tried to argue once that SM's should be able to switch out the standard Razorbacks in their formations for the razorback infernus out of IA2. Only difference is the infernus is equipped with a multi-melta and is a straight 65 points (with no gun upgrade available)as opposed to the regular 55 point razorback. It even says in IA2 that any SM unit that can take a razorback as a dedicated transport can instead use the infernus version.

For instance, you take the battle company GSF and get free Razorbacks. Well since there is a 10 point difference between the regular and the infernus then just pay an extra 10 points per vehicle. As if you were just paying for upgrades and options on your regular free Razorbacks.

I can see not having EVERY FW unit being able to be added to formations but somethings could be easily transitioned in with some common sense.

Yeah go for it within reason, if it's like for like (so predi variants) then I don't seen an issue with it

 Peregrine wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
Just play unbound instead and stop fishing for free benefits of the formation you power hungry cheater.

Unbound is not an option for most people.

But going unbound while claiming you don't and thus using the full benefits of the formation is. You guys are strange.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't protest your statement. We can all see that a large portion of this forum users rejects unbound out of fear for the strange and the op while at the same time accepts this clearly more powerful houseruled version of unbound. I just find it strange that's all.

Acknowledging that GW's rules are not perfect is hardly strange.

Current formation system is breaking the game, but I don't mind more options in my game. Of course, it should be done in a responsible manner, which would not break the game any more.

If they were mandatory that'd be evil, if they were optional it'd work. All the FW is just variants of most 40k stuff anyways,

Not all armies have such similarities between codex units and FW units.

Your idea ignores those armies, and thus creates more unbalancing.

Therefore, it should not be done.

I'd rather Forgeworld make it so their units can go in decurion style formations. I'd prefer they do it though, and make it official before Instead of letting people home brew their own solutions.

Also there are some formations where the fluff makes sense as to why you should be able to use a unit in said formation. Explain why in the single flyer formation the reason it makes sense that it can't take a barracuda? Or why tetras can't be in the fast attack slot in the hunter cadre?

I know you can replace any named character in a formation with a FW (as long as they are the same type, E.G Tigarius for Sevrin Loth, Cassius for Thulsa Kane)

 commander dante wrote:
I know you can replace any named character in a formation with a FW (as long as they are the same type, E.G Tigarius for Sevrin Loth, Cassius for Thulsa Kane)

Where is this based on ?

 oldzoggy wrote:
But going unbound while claiming you don't and thus using the full benefits of the formation is. You guys are strange.

It's not playing unbound and claiming the benefits of the formation, it's changing the rules of the formation to include certain other units that people feel should have been included already. That's no more "playing unbound" than, say, modifying invisibility to make units BS 1 instead of firing snap shots.

We can all see that a large portion of this forum users rejects unbound out of fear for the strange and the op while at the same time accepts this clearly more powerful houseruled version of unbound.

It's not more powerful at all. Unbound lets you play anything. Modifying specific formations to include specific units only allows a limited additional option, it doesn't allow you to then say "I'm going to take some crisis suits in my tyranid army" like unbound would. There's a huge difference between "you should be able to take a Medusa instead of a Basilisk since they're essentially the same unit" and "you should be able to take anything you want regardless of formation or FOC rules".