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 know these were horrible in 7E, but certain mechanics now exist that can make Formations work in 8E
Instead of granting "free" stuff or silly special rules, why not have Formations simple grant Obsec and additional CPs for certain themed detachments?

For example, Saim-Hann Windrider detachment could be:
1 Skyrunner Farseer or Skyrunner Autarch
1 Skyrunner Warlock or Warlock Skyrunner Conclave
3 units of Windriders
Optional 1 unit of Shining Spears and/or 1 unit of Vypers

Must be Saim-Hann. Windriders gain ObSec, 3-4CPs

Nothing too fancy, just Obsec and extra CPs (but still less than a Battalion). Similar can be applied to Deathwing, or really any themed list.
Chapter Approved could eventually release a massive list of such Formations

-

No. Ten characters.

Formations should never under any circumstances come back.

 Galef wrote:
I know these were horrible in 7E, but certain mechanics now exist that can make Formations work in 8E
Instead of granting "free" stuff or silly special rules, why not have Formations simple grant Obsec and additional CPs for certain themed detachments?

For example, Saim-Hann Windrider detachment could be:
1 Skyrunner Farseer or Skyrunner Autarch
1 Skyrunner Warlock or Warlock Skyrunner Conclave
3 units of Windriders
Optional 1 unit of Shining Spears and/or 1 unit of Vypers

Must be Saim-Hann. Windriders gain ObSec, 3-4CPs

Nothing too fancy, just Obsec and extra CPs (but still less than a Battalion). Similar can be applied to Deathwing, or really any themed list.
Chapter Approved could eventually release a massive list of such Formations

-

If they were in the game there would need to be a cost for each formation same as the ones in AOS.

 Mr Morden wrote:
If they were in the game there would need to be a cost for each formation same as the ones in AOS.

Which might be fine, if reasonable. Never more than 100pts

The main goal with this change is to encourage "fluffy" lists in competitive play. Not only for those chapters/craftworlds that are never, ever played in competitive games, like Saim-Hann, but also to encourage using particular units, like Windriders.
Having to take X amount of sub-par units and selecting a sub-par trait should be the "cost" of the Formation, but that's always going to be subjective unfortunately.

An alternate option would be to somehow change non-Battalion detachments to be worth taking, but that's probably going to take multiple changes.
For example, if detachments are reset to factory settings (Battalions go back to only 3CPs) and being Battle forged granted 5+ CPs for all armies, the disparity between detachments and armies that cannot "soup" is much less.

Shining Spears are rumored to increase in cost, but Windriders still need a decrease to ever be considered worth taking. Rules and abilities alone, you should be able to take 2 WRs for the cost of 1 SS. As SS are unlikely to be over 40ppm, WRs therefore should be less than 20ppm with Twin Cats and less than 25ppm after upgrading to Scat or Shuricannon
But even after all those changes, you're still better off making them Alaitoc, rather than Saim-Hann

Reintroducing Formations could solve all the above problems in one go if done right. I know that might be a big ask of GW, but if they keep it simple, they won't go far wrong.

-

Nope. Not from GW. They can't balance Formations or CP so they won't manage with both.

I'd rather they either went back to Formations and worked on those (I liked Formations) or keep refining CP.

pm713 wrote:
Nope. Not from GW. They can't balance Formations or CP so they won't manage with both.

Fair enough. Shame too, because it just seems so easy.

But I will say, when 8E first dropped, I loved the variety of detachments. But then my Troops were taken away (Windriders), Battalions were FAQ's to make all other detachments pointless and armies started getting tons of Strats.

-

Perhaps formations could unlock specific Stratagems instead of giving CPs? You could either move existing stratagems to formations (some actually already exist, such as the tri-Predator one), and/or create new ones.

You can't legislate fluff. Best case scenario, you make something no one uses. Worst case, you make something everyone always uses.

We sort of kind of already have this. Consider the special rules surrounding knight detachments, that weird assassin vanguard detachment thing, and the dark eldar raiding party (triple patrol) rule.

I'd be very willing to entertain the idea of expanding this concept to include other armies or playstyles. Restricting the benefits of formations to CP and obsec is probably a good idea though. The core problem with formations in 7th was that the units in the formation were either:

A.) Already perfectly fine without extra benefits. At which point the formation benefits were either too inconsequential to matter or mattered enough to risk making the previously balanced options unbalanced.
or
B.) Not good enough to stand on their own at which point formations felt like a bandaid that restricted list building options and served as an excuse to design units poorly. "This unit is great! You just have to take 3 units of them as part of this cookie cutter formation!"

So if you can avoid that particular pitfall, you're golden. That said, I think the specific things you're looking for might be solved more elegantly in other ways.

You mention CP problems for armies like Raven Wing that discourage fielding troops from a fluff perspective. Xenomancer's proposal of starting with X CP based on points level and then spending CP to unlock additional detachments seems like a good way to fix this on its own. Your Saim-Hann would still probably have fewer CP than a list full of troops, but you'd be in the right ballpark to still be able to participate in the stratagem portion of the game.

As we've discussed in other threads, the windrider vs shining spear comparison might be better solved by moving windriders back into the troop slot and possibly bringing them back to 1 heavy weapon per 3 bikes setup of old.

This is wandering a bit off-topic, but you could also possibly grant formation-esque benefits to mono-subfaction armies. The idea being that an army composed entirely of Blood Angels with no knights or imperial guard soupporting (TM) them has given up a measurable advantage by opting not to soup. If the soup army is considered balanced and the non-souped BA are considered less powerful than the soup army, then there is presumably some room to provide the non-soup army with some additional benefits to make up the difference.

Soan army composed entirely of Saim-Hann detachments has effectively given up access to Agents of Vect, ynnari or alaitoc reapers, ravagers, etc. Instead, they might (to steal Stormonu's fun idea) gain access to addition Saim-Hann stratagems or Craftworld Attributes.

The tricky thing is that you have to have a very strong understanding of...
*What the optimal options being sacrificed are
*What the actual value of those sacrificed options are
* What the actual potency of the pure list is. Just because a list isn't soupy doesn't necessarily mean it's less powerful than an optimized soup list. Even if not souping does make a list less powerful, the amount of power one list gives up (let's say GK as an example) might not be as great as the power given up by another list (like a pure guard army.)

Also, this would mean that armies that happen to be pretty powerful on their own wouldn't necessarily deserve to receive one of those juicy new mono-faction benefits. Similarly, armies like orks and 'crons don't have any allies to give up in the first place. So if you assume they're balanced as they are (or will be once the ork book is out), then you don't really have as much of an excuse to power them up by giving them mono-faction options.

Fluffy and competitive doesn't belong in the same sentence.

Fluffy and viable, maybe.

 skchsan wrote:
Fluffy and competitive doesn't belong in the same sentence.

Fluffy and viable, maybe.

Why not? Wouldn't it be good if what was fluffy was also good?

I mean, IDEALLY, everything is good. But that's pretty much impossible. But why can't what's fluffy also be competitive?

As a late joiner to 7E; faction-specific Detachments always seemed like a fun and cool part of the game, but I am glad that 8E keeps things like that simpler.

I do miss my Farsight Enclaves Piranha Wing Detachment from 7E though. (never got to use it before 8th hit) I think there's a world where faction-specific formations can be fluffy & fun without ruining the rest of the game for everyone.

When you make formations you start pigeon holing players into bringing certain lists. Do you really want to fight the same 2 or 3 armies run by 10 different players again?

Aren't they pigeon holed already. Bring IG battery + Imperial hammer of choice (custodes, knights, slamguinius etc)

Tygre wrote:
Aren't they pigeon holed already. Bring IG battery + Imperial hammer of choice (custodes, knights, slamguinius etc)

Great. ONE army is mostly because they are inappropriately costed and soup is out of control. Now how about nids? What the magic bullet for nids? Tau? Eldar? DEldar? Chaos Marines? Chaos Deamons?

The very moment you tell players "Bring these exact units and you get these extra gifts" either the extra gifts are worthless and it will never be played or the extra gifts are good and there is no reason to not take the extra gifts so now the whole army is built around the predetermined block.

I don't want that. I imagine most people don't want that. Most people don't like whats happening with IG now so lets just give it to everybody?

The funny part is that while "most people don't like what's happening with IG", they don't seem to want any fixes that aren't just "NERF IG!" either.

I'd be okay with this provided it's done the same as AoS. And yes, the Formations would have to be 100+ points. 100 is the cheapest for some Warscroll Battalions there.

Formations are hard to balance though because it's the equivalent of Marine units being priced like you were running Roboute all the time.

Obviously though you're right Windriders need help. They need to go back to being troops, which would actually help solve a lot of issues in the same way moving Imperial Guard Vets back to troops would help them out.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Formations are hard to balance though because it's the equivalent of Marine units being priced like you were running Roboute all the time.

I disagree, at least if we go for the AoS setup. That's why the Warscroll Battalions are priced with points unless they're the Start Collecting or Battleforce ones which don't get points and are intended for Open/Narrative Play.

Obviously though you're right Windriders need help. They need to go back to being troops, which would actually help solve a lot of issues in the same way moving Imperial Guard Vets back to troops would help them out.

Disagree. With the 'variable' Detachments like Outriders and the like, this isn't a big issue outside of Tournaments ruling you can only use a certain number of Detachments. Realistically what should have happened is a rule in the Craftworlds book where Windriders taken in an Outrider Detachment with the Saim-Hann keyword gained Objective Secured. We got something similar in the IG book for Leman Russes and the Spearhead Detachment, not that you ever really see them that much.

Veterans are kind of in a different category(IMO), as they lost the options that made them fairly flexible in addition to the Elites slot move.

Building off Galef's "detachment", if we used the AoS setup:
Windrider Host
1 Skyrunner Farseer OR Autarch
1 Skyrunner Warlock OR Conclave
3 units of Wind Riders(AoS caps a lot of these kinds of units for the actual book Warscroll Battalions while the freebie/Start Collecting ones will just say <Insert Number Here>+ for the values)
0-1 units of Shining Spears
1 Vyper Squadron

The idea would be that you then have to designate the models composing the Formation from the outset. Any further instances of them do not benefit from the Formation rules, unless you purchase another instance of the Formation.

If there is any room for formation like benefits, it's allowing an override of rule of 3 for these armies.

So if you want to build a saimhann army, then windriders in this detachment ignores the rule of 3 for matched plays.

This is quite an interesting thing to consider.

Detachments in their own rights tried to give armies an ability to build "how you wanted" while giving out CP in a way GW thought would be "balanced"

More specilized = Less CP

Less Specialized = more CP

However lately they have made the point of making less specialized detachments and troops more outlandishly noticeable this edition "5CP for 3 troops and 2 HQ while 1 HQ + 3 elites/heavies/fast = 1"

Look, i get that the majority of people do not actually care nor really notice the lore behind this game. But for others that love the lore of their army (which i am one of those) being able to build a fluffy list that could compete with the likes of Guillimans parking space or Alatoic hard to hit army would be such a great thing to have.

Formations have gotten a stigma from last edition where either they were :

a) too overpowered or

b) not worth your time

Pricing the formations (like AOS) and making the benefits be in either CP or stratagems (or both) would promote more variety in people's playstyles. (hey instead of taking an alatoic SS list, why not take a saim hann windrider formation that gives you some CP (maybe 2-3 CP) and access to some saim hann stratagems?)

Just because last edition formations were crazy doesn't mean we can't look at what had happened, change it to be more suitable this edition and implement it so that it is both fair and balanced. Both for the player who wants to play a themed army and the player who would use it for competitive play.

(also, an errata could go out that limits formations to 1-2 per army or something. That way you can say the formation can overflow on the unit caps for the army list, but the formations themselves are restricted)

Well 8th edition is fethed up anyway, can only get better from here, yay for formations!

mchammadad wrote:
This is quite an interesting thing to consider.

Detachments in their own rights tried to give armies an ability to build "how you wanted" while giving out CP in a way GW thought would be "balanced"

More specilized = Less CP

Less Specialized = more CP

However lately they have made the point of making less specialized detachments and troops more outlandishly noticeable this edition "5CP for 3 troops and 2 HQ while 1 HQ + 3 elites/heavies/fast = 1"

Look, i get that the majority of people do not actually care nor really notice the lore behind this game. But for others that love the lore of their army (which i am one of those) being able to build a fluffy list that could compete with the likes of Guillimans parking space or Alatoic hard to hit army would be such a great thing to have.

Formations have gotten a stigma from last edition where either they were :

a) too overpowered or

b) not worth your time

Pricing the formations (like AOS) and making the benefits be in either CP or stratagems (or both) would promote more variety in people's playstyles. (hey instead of taking an alatoic SS list, why not take a saim hann windrider formation that gives you some CP (maybe 2-3 CP) and access to some saim hann stratagems?)

Just because last edition formations were crazy doesn't mean we can't look at what had happened, change it to be more suitable this edition and implement it so that it is both fair and balanced. Both for the player who wants to play a themed army and the player who would use it for competitive play.

(also, an errata could go out that limits formations to 1-2 per army or something. That way you can say the formation can overflow on the unit caps for the army list, but the formations themselves are restricted)

There is a logical fallacy in this. Actually 2.

1) Formations being bad in 7th doesn't mean they can be fixed to be good for the game in 8th. The whole foundation on which formations are built is the problem (for the game. Not for selling models. For selling models forcing you to by x units to get y benefit is good for GW. Especially when they package in underselling units).

To that end, GW really did feth up the detachments for 8th. Not just in how many CP they were giving out but in that you could literally take heaps of whatever type of unit you wanted. The detachments for 30k were great. They put everyone on a level playing field and forced players to diversify their lists a bit while allowing the Rights of War to give players options for moving certain units into different FoC slots for fluff. GW should have stuck to the one basic FoC and one Allied being all thats allowed and went with the RoW route.

Formations don't give players options for how to build their list. They build in restrictions that force you into specific paths.

2) You liking lore is all good and fine, but the fluff can't come before game balance no matter how much you enjoy it. The game needs to be fun. And for the game to be fun it needs to be balanced first. Not that the game is balanced now mind you. Just specifying that if your aiming for fluff first you have already missed the mark.

I am kinda fed up with CP and or formations.

CP and stratagems are atm massively unbalanced, it does also not help that certain armies are basically just there to Generate Cp for other detachments which have the better units and stratagems to use.
IG for exemple is atm the equivalent to an undending laspack for the lasgun that is the hammer part of any comp list in imperium ever.

Formations on the other hand force you to buy specific units often, to gain x benefit, mind you that would not be a problem with relativ open formations but there where quite alot of closed formations which were just muliple units of the same type and x charachter for a benefit. Then there are also formation effects themselves, which are equally difficult to balance.

I think that we should have either or, so as to allow for a simpler and easier balance, but since this is GW i kinda do not expect a good balance either way.

Perhaps a simple solution would be to consider any models that are in a formation are Battle-forged, regardless of keywords or number of units. So for example, if you filled out a given formation (don’t have a good model group I can think of off-hand) in a Battalion, you would meet its requirements for being Battleforged, even if you didn’t meet the unit requirements/slots.

 Lance845 wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
This is quite an interesting thing to consider.

Detachments in their own rights tried to give armies an ability to build "how you wanted" while giving out CP in a way GW thought would be "balanced"

More specilized = Less CP

Less Specialized = more CP

However lately they have made the point of making less specialized detachments and troops more outlandishly noticeable this edition "5CP for 3 troops and 2 HQ while 1 HQ + 3 elites/heavies/fast = 1"

Look, i get that the majority of people do not actually care nor really notice the lore behind this game. But for others that love the lore of their army (which i am one of those) being able to build a fluffy list that could compete with the likes of Guillimans parking space or Alatoic hard to hit army would be such a great thing to have.

Formations have gotten a stigma from last edition where either they were :

a) too overpowered or

b) not worth your time

Pricing the formations (like AOS) and making the benefits be in either CP or stratagems (or both) would promote more variety in people's playstyles. (hey instead of taking an alatoic SS list, why not take a saim hann windrider formation that gives you some CP (maybe 2-3 CP) and access to some saim hann stratagems?)

Just because last edition formations were crazy doesn't mean we can't look at what had happened, change it to be more suitable this edition and implement it so that it is both fair and balanced. Both for the player who wants to play a themed army and the player who would use it for competitive play.

(also, an errata could go out that limits formations to 1-2 per army or something. That way you can say the formation can overflow on the unit caps for the army list, but the formations themselves are restricted)

There is a logical fallacy in this. Actually 2.

1) Formations being bad in 7th doesn't mean they can be fixed to be good for the game in 8th. The whole foundation on which formations are built is the problem (for the game. Not for selling models. For selling models forcing you to by x units to get y benefit is good for GW. Especially when they package in underselling units).

To that end, GW really did feth up the detachments for 8th. Not just in how many CP they were giving out but in that you could literally take heaps of whatever type of unit you wanted. The detachments for 30k were great. They put everyone on a level playing field and forced players to diversify their lists a bit while allowing the Rights of War to give players options for moving certain units into different FoC slots for fluff. GW should have stuck to the one basic FoC and one Allied being all thats allowed and went with the RoW route.

Formations don't give players options for how to build their list. They build in restrictions that force you into specific paths.

2) You liking lore is all good and fine, but the fluff can't come before game balance no matter how much you enjoy it. The game needs to be fun. And for the game to be fun it needs to be balanced first. Not that the game is balanced now mind you. Just specifying that if your aiming for fluff first you have already missed the mark.

So last i remember about horus heresy, is that the meta in that is just power gaming now. No one is gonna "diversify" if the list they are fighting is the most optimized list out there. And add to the fact that in 30k not all legions are created equily and you can see that 30k is just as messed up. If not more messed up because of power creep and the fact that some legions are just inherently more superior than others. (looking at you guys iron hands)

The concept behind formations was actually quite a solid one. It's major problem was that the rewards were too good compared to a conventional list (why take a normal detachment when a formation gave you a better ability over objec secure) and it had no associated cost with the formations

A formation, by it's nature. forces you to take specified units to get it's benefits. That's its entire point. A power gamer can't capitalize on specified units when building a formation, but can get an equivalent reward from adhering to it's restrictions if they follow it compared to building a standard detachment list.

It's also why i do not actually like the detachment system. It forces people to take a standardized list because the benefits of bringing a generic list is worth much more than bringing a specialized/thematic list


Hense if formations were scaled to either only provide CP/ Stratagems or both then there wouldn't be a problem(the bigger/more diversified the formation is, the more rewarding it should be). As Formations would provide either something that is useful to a player, or allows those of us who like a theme behind an army to build the army how it's meant to be shown in it's lore without being shafted by the incredibly rigid detachments (i mean lets be real here. What themed army runs with 3 lots of troops all the time with 2 HQ's?)

I do remember when formations first came out noting that it was amusing that people where freaking out about armies consisting of the much maligned tac squad at it's core

Not Online!!! wrote:
I am kinda fed up with CP and or formations.

CP and stratagems are atm massively unbalanced.

This is why my games at home only ever use the reroll 1 dice Strat only. Armies should be good on their own, with strat bonuses just being there for a bit extra, but most are so good that you end up relying on them, or they replace a special rule from prior editions that was integral to a specific unit.
Take away strats and CPs and the detachments as they are work fine.

-

mchammadad wrote:

So last i remember about horus heresy, is that the meta in that is just power gaming now. No one is gonna "diversify" if the list they are fighting is the most optimized list out there. And add to the fact that in 30k not all legions are created equily and you can see that 30k is just as messed up. If not more messed up because of power creep and the fact that some legions are just inherently more superior than others. (looking at you guys iron hands)

The one is not related to the other. 30ks RoW are a good mechanic. Especially just the base line ones that HH started with and the FoC the game started with. Like all GW products it has suffered from power creep and bloat which is what you are talking about. Trace the issues you are talking about to their source. What is CAUSING that problem. RoW are not the problem. RoW add fluffy ways to build a list that don't just offer benefits in the slots you can place that unit into but also restrictions on what things you can bring at all.

The concept behind formations was actually quite a solid one. It's major problem was that the rewards were too good compared to a conventional list (why take a normal detachment when a formation gave you a better ability over objec secure) and it had no associated cost with the formations

A formation, by it's nature. forces you to take specified units to get it's benefits. That's its entire point. A power gamer can't capitalize on specified units when building a formation, but can get an equivalent reward from adhering to it's restrictions if they follow it compared to building a standard detachment list.

I get that thats the point. The point is a bad one. Don't tell me I can build my army my way and then make it so I can't REALLY. Because i gotta go bring x y z to be effective.

This boils down to you looking for a band aid. People spam units. So restrict how many slots they have to bring units. Don't force them to take units they don't want. The HH rules only allowed you to have 2 detachments and one of them was the small allied detachment.

It's also why i do not actually like the detachment system. It forces people to take a standardized list because the benefits of bringing a generic list is worth much more than bringing a specialized/thematic list


Hense if formations were scaled to either only provide CP/ Stratagems or both then there wouldn't be a problem(the bigger/more diversified the formation is, the more rewarding it should be). As Formations would provide either something that is useful to a player, or allows those of us who like a theme behind an army to build the army how it's meant to be shown in it's lore without being shafted by the incredibly rigid detachments (i mean lets be real here. What themed army runs with 3 lots of troops all the time with 2 HQ's?)

Again. RoW.

For example. You get the basic 7th ed detachment and potentially an allied detachment.

You take.... Ravenwing RoW which is granted to you by bringing Sammael. Grants, You can take Ravenwing Bikers as Troops. You cannot take Rhinos as transports. Any HQ must be on a bike or speeder. You cannot take any Deathing in the detachment.


For your allied detachment you could then take Deathwing. But your main Ravenwing detachment, because of the optional RoW gives you extra fluffy slots to fill up on more bikes then you would otherwise normally be able to take. Your FA slots can now be used for other things like speeders. Or more bikes!

Nothing costs anything more. No extra rules are given. Restrictions to the list balance out benefits.

If you want to get that Deathwing going with the bikes you need to eat up your allied detachment. Which means no souping in IG or whatever. Because you only have the 2. And even if you DO soup in some IG you ONLY have the very limited allied detachment to do it with.

So last i remember about horus heresy, is that the meta in that is just power gaming now. No one is gonna "diversify" if the list they are fighting is the most optimized list out there. And add to the fact that in 30k not all legions are created equily and you can see that 30k is just as messed up. If not more messed up because of power creep and the fact that some legions are just inherently more superior than others. (looking at you guys iron hands)

The one is not related to the other. 30ks RoW are a good mechanic. Especially just the base line ones that HH started with and the FoC the game started with. Like all GW products it has suffered from power creep and bloat which is what you are talking about. Trace the issues you are talking about to their source. What is CAUSING that problem. RoW are not the problem. RoW add fluffy ways to build a list that don't just offer benefits in the slots you can place that unit into but also restrictions on what things you can bring at all.

That sounds like a sensible idea. Yet you must remember that 40k is much more inherently different to HH.

For one, the amount of armies you can field in 40k are far more numerous and diverse than it's 30k counterpart. This adds more problems in the form of different armies and their diverging styles of combat.

The majority of things in 40k dont have the SM statline (WS 4 BS 4 S 4 T 4 W 1 I 4 A 1 Ld 8 Sv 3+) so you cant really expect a one size fits all solution.

RoW in 30k worked well because the majority of armies (with a few exceptions) based themselves off this statline or close to this statline. In 8th edition 40k however we have wildly different statlines compared to 30k (tau,Asuyani,Drukhari,IG,SM,Necrons,Tyranids,Orks,Mechanicum,Inquisition,Deathwatch,GK,Chaos in general) Making a RoW "esque" system in 40k would be a clustertruck in itself. Since there would be no solid "generic" template to work off stat or mechanics wise.

Formations in their own way was a way for GW to give a RoW style of building, but was deemed a failure because it was not regulated to be the equivalent of the FOC system that most people were farmiliar with.

The concept behind formations was actually quite a solid one. It's major problem was that the rewards were too good compared to a conventional list (why take a normal detachment when a formation gave you a better ability over objec secure) and it had no associated cost with the formations

A formation, by it's nature. forces you to take specified units to get it's benefits. That's its entire point. A power gamer can't capitalize on specified units when building a formation, but can get an equivalent reward from adhering to it's restrictions if they follow it compared to building a standard detachment list.

I get that thats the point. The point is a bad one. Don't tell me I can build my army my way and then make it so I can't REALLY. Because i gotta go bring x y z to be effective.

This boils down to you looking for a band aid. People spam units. So restrict how many slots they have to bring units. Don't force them to take units they don't want. The HH rules only allowed you to have 2 detachments and one of them was the small allied detachment.

I would love to have a 2 detachment restriction for 40k. I really would.

Yet i also acknowledge that not everyone plays 40k the same as everyone else. People like to experiment or have a fun time making something that they think would be either fun or "workable"

Restricting that and saying that there is a hard cap on how many detachments you can bring makes people leave because they see that the game doesn't allow much flexibility in how it's played. Even the 3 detachment cap recommendation for Organized play actually hinders certain armies ability to play how the army should play (dark eldar raiding parties would never be a thing in a tournament setting) that is one list building that is not allowed because of a hard cap that was put into the rules, yet it stops people who would love to play that style of play from playing.

The 3 entry cap was a way to address the biggest culprits of spamming (hive tyrants mostly) and to make it less of a spam army and more you have to restrict yourself of certain units. Adding a more tighter restriction to detachments would just make people leave the hobby, which is bad both for GW and for us the players. We want people to experiment, find their own groove in this game and play something that is fun in their eyes. Restricting this too heavily, even in tournament play is not the way to go. There must be a balance of being able to provide the freedom of choice, but be able to restrict problems to a sensible level.

It's also why i do not actually like the detachment system. It forces people to take a standardized list because the benefits of bringing a generic list is worth much more than bringing a specialized/thematic list


Hense if formations were scaled to either only provide CP/ Stratagems or both then there wouldn't be a problem(the bigger/more diversified the formation is, the more rewarding it should be). As Formations would provide either something that is useful to a player, or allows those of us who like a theme behind an army to build the army how it's meant to be shown in it's lore without being shafted by the incredibly rigid detachments (i mean lets be real here. What themed army runs with 3 lots of troops all the time with 2 HQ's?)

Again. RoW.

For example. You get the basic 7th ed detachment and potentially an allied detachment.

You take.... Ravenwing RoW which is granted to you by bringing Sammael. Grants, You can take Ravenwing Bikers as Troops. You cannot take Rhinos as transports. Any HQ must be on a bike or speeder. You cannot take any Deathing in the detachment.


For your allied detachment you could then take Deathwing. But your main Ravenwing detachment, because of the optional RoW gives you extra fluffy slots to fill up on more bikes then you would otherwise normally be able to take. Your FA slots can now be used for other things like speeders. Or more bikes!

Nothing costs anything more. No extra rules are given. Restrictions to the list balance out benefits.

If you want to get that Deathwing going with the bikes you need to eat up your allied detachment. Which means no souping in IG or whatever. Because you only have the 2. And even if you DO soup in some IG you ONLY have the very limited allied detachment to do it with.

Yet what about the people who run ravenwing in rhino's? What about the people who want to run their own captain as part of a ravenwing mobile army using land raiders? What about those who would want to run Deathwing troops lead by Samael with some land speeders because they think that it would look "cool" to see samael rushing towards the enemy while the deathwing smashes into the enemy line while their mid firing into samael?

RoW works in 30k because 30k was designed around the legions. Allies in that are scarce and most people know that the legions can stand up by themselves.

Now switch to 40k and a lot of armies need the synergy with others because of how the game has been designed.

You can't just cut and paste a system from another game and expect it to work the same way, that's like if i replaced the motor from a V8 engine for a 2 stroke engine. Sure it might work but the thing won't be the same.

Allies in 8th edition is a problem in itself, and really should be discussed in it's own thread. But the main point is that the game kinda forces you to ally with others that can cover your weakness.

Space marines in 30k spanned in the hundreds of thousands, yet in 40k there is a thousand man cap to each chapter. Solar auxiliar was a small element compared to the monolith that is the IG in 40k. In 40k there are more diverse ways to play compared to 30k, so the systems are not the same. Everything is either cheaper, deadlier or more streamlined to kill massive numbers in a short amount of time. While in 30k it was more precise, a lot more focused. You can't have the same focus when the game system is much bigger.

Key point is, you can't expect to use a system that worked in another game to patch a different game style. It doen't work and just brings in more problems. Instead you have to look at the game system and it's past iterations to see what worked and what could work if it was tweaked for the new system. We need to stick to what we have already known, not something that worked for something else

mchammadad wrote:

Yet what about the people who run ravenwing in rhino's? What about the people who want to run their own captain as part of a ravenwing mobile army using land raiders? What about those who would want to run Deathwing troops lead by Samael with some land speeders because they think that it would look "cool" to see samael rushing towards the enemy while the deathwing smashes into the enemy line while their mid firing into samael?

Then DON'T use the RoW. Sammael doesn't FORCE you to use the RoW. Sam opens up the OPTION. The RoW dont give you any extra rules. The individual units don't get any better or any worse because of the RoW. All they do is change how you can fill in your slots to bring them and they are all 100% optional.

If you want ravenwing in rhinos with deathwing all in one detachment then put them all in one DarkAngles detachment with no RoW. Done.

What RoW do is give you tools to build fluffy lists that you could not normally do with a generic FoC by allowing you to move units into slots they don't normally occupy. Those fluffy options come with fluffy restrictions. Nothing costs any more. Nothing costs any less. Nothing get any bonus it didn't have normally. They are also all 100% optional. And none of it force you to take any particular units as some kind of a tax to build that fluffy. You can still choose from all the valid options for each FoC slot.