Formations: good or bad? - Page 2 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
General 40k This is the place to talk about everything related to Warhammer 40k.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-23-15, 07:40 AM
Vaz
Senior Member
 
Vaz's Avatar
Vaz's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Manchester, UK.
Posts: 12,830
Reputation: 79
Default

I love the formations. Their concept allows them to mix and match and come up with rules that makes some terrible units somewhat capable.

Best thing that happened to the game as far as I'm concerned.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi Baji View Post
It's not a black and white question really, there are different shades of anal probing,
a rectum spectrum, if you will
Vaz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-23-15, 09:49 AM
Senior Member
ItsPug's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Enniskillen, Northern Ireland
Posts: 1,115
Reputation: 4
Default

I like the idea of decurions, the most common space marine list should have a solid backbone of tacital squads, with a couple of support units, a necron phalanx should have a solid core of warriors that just flat out refuse to die.

The only problem I have is with allies, as someone mentioned above, taking a fire support cadre or dethbringer flight etc, to overcome the weaknesses in your main force takes some of the flavour and skill out of the army.

Overall Tournament Game Results W:78 D:22 L:32
ItsPug is offline  
post #13 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-23-15, 11:53 AM
Rattlehead
 
MidnightSun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Sheoth
Posts: 6,741
Reputation: 83
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsPug View Post
I like the idea of decurions, the most common space marine list should have a solid backbone of tacital squads, with a couple of support units, a necron phalanx should have a solid core of warriors that just flat out refuse to die.
I disagree with this. If you want to run a 1st Company army, or a 10th Company army, or a Biker army, you should be allowed to do that. Not all Space Marine forces consist of Tactical Squads, or even have Tactical Squads. Not all Necron dynasties rely on Warriors.

If I could have a choice between modern Formations and the FOC swaps of 5th ed, I'd totally pick the FOC swaps as it allowed you to make a themed force without having to bring certain units and more importantly, didn't limit you in bringing other units.

Creator of Utilitarian Ultramarines Memes - join the XIII on Facebook (no XVII allowed).

Last edited by MidnightSun; 05-23-15 at 11:56 AM.
MidnightSun is offline  
 
post #14 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-23-15, 12:11 PM
Senior Member
ItsPug's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Enniskillen, Northern Ireland
Posts: 1,115
Reputation: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MidnightSun View Post
I disagree with this. If you want to run a 1st Company army, or a 10th Company army, or a Biker army, you should be allowed to do that. Not all Space Marine forces consist of Tactical Squads, or even have Tactical Squads. Not all Necron dynasties rely on Warriors.

If I could have a choice between modern Formations and the FOC swaps of 5th ed, I'd totally pick the FOC swaps as it allowed you to make a themed force without having to bring certain units and more importantly, didn't limit you in bringing other units.
I said most common. not all.

The first company is one tenth of a chapter, and is normally split between other companies as reinforcements, spearheads etc. Same with the tenth. Battle companies are the basic building block of a space marine force in the fluff, with attachments from other companies and the chapter armoury added to them - hence the whole two compulsory troops bit of the CAD, and the whole "elites dont hold objectives" crap we did have.

Overall Tournament Game Results W:78 D:22 L:32
ItsPug is offline  
post #15 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-24-15, 01:21 PM
Feed
 
Serpion5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Space
Posts: 10,976
Reputation: 51
Default

I'm in favour of them, mostly because it adds flexibility to the game.

40k stopped being uber competitive two editions ago, so I don't see much point in focusing on how the game can be broken. You play this game to have fun. If I stumbled across a list that wiped the floor against all comers, I wouldn't play it and neither would I play against an opponent who didn't feel the same.

But frankly, I am not convinced that such a list is even possible at this point. I've seen a few hard builds in my area and there are several players who love to find the most competitive lists they can (generally just for curiosity's sake), but nothing that cannot be countered one way or another.


Nonsense is our Salvation

Serpion5 is offline  
post #16 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-31-15, 02:49 PM
Senior Member
Creator of Chaos's Flag is: Australia
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 195
Reputation: 2
Default

As much as I would enjoy a dedicated tournament rule set I have to say i do like unique force orgs and stuff like durcursions. Adds flavour to the game, Entourage's synergy instead of spam, lets rarely used models shine and being rewarded for taking a particular unit is something thats been lacking for a long time. I really love the mephrit chart for my crons. Nothing like unkillable blobs of warrior's under the gaze of illuminator Seraz.

What im not ok with is allies. Not only is it unfitting for a fair amount the warhammer scene. It breaks balance. Got Problems with Close combat pair your crons with chaos. Hate being shot to bits while your sisters move foward pair them with tau.. I cringe at some of the combos I see. If its doubles or a set campaign like the recent leviathon book fair enough but please leave allies out of standard singles

As for formations Im indifferent on them. I love concept but hate the implementation and how that can be spammed. If it was 1 per detachment (I.E replace allies with formation) it would be perfect but facing multiple canoptek harvest is certainly no fun.

Bringer of Truth, Slayer of the Incompetant

Last edited by Creator of Chaos; 05-31-15 at 02:56 PM.
Creator of Chaos is offline  
post #17 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-31-15, 04:58 PM
JUGGERNUT
 
venomlust's Avatar
venomlust's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,558
Reputation: 32
Default

Different strokes, I guess. I love the allies system along with formations. I just wish there were more Chaos versions of things like Knights and Mechanicus for us to use.


SUFFER NOT THE PONY TO LIVE.

- - AMATEUR KHORNESTAR: MY BLOG THING - -
venomlust is offline  
post #18 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-31-15, 06:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Drohar's Avatar
Drohar's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bishop's Stortford
Posts: 199
Reputation: 14
Default

The allied formation is good if you keep things fluffy and to make your army look unique and cool.
But it could be easily abused and done super armies, but unless you are a tournament player -I am not, but I understand tournaments place restrictions anyway - it won't matter because who really will play against those players for long in their gaming group.

If you play with friends they shouldn't be doing that anyway and you'll be using allies to create nice armies suiting your playing style or simply not having any. But allies do create endless possibilities. Some of them might be hilarious on the table. It's all about having fun
Drohar is offline  
post #19 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-01-15, 09:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Sethis's Avatar
Sethis's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Alston, Cumbria
Posts: 4,190
Reputation: 58
Default

I'm a 28 year old with an IQ of 130 and formations confuse the everliving shit out of me. The sheer pile of obtuse and random collections of special rules that are triggered by having non-related units taken in concert across multiple FOC slots and even factions or armies defies logic or rationale.

Lets take an incredibly simple one even, not even a complex rule - the new Dire Avengers formation from Craftworld Eldar.

Take three units of Dire Avengers. That's all you need to do.

You instantly gain three different special rules - one of which is one use only, one of which is a permanent change to your statline, and the other is a reroll to three different types of leadership test (but not the others).

My first problem with this is narrative. Why the hell are my Avengers suddenly so much more awesome just because there's 15 of them divided into three units than they are when there are 20 of them divided into two? For that matter why are they this much better than when taken in any other way? What mystical power is granted them that increases their accuracy, volume of fire, and morale simply by having three of them on the table, and not even needing to be fighting together? They could be at opposite ends of a 12ft table and it'd still work.

My second problem is that I need to now remember all of these abilities at different stages of the turn, and this gets exponentially harder the more units I have, from different formations, dataslates, codices et al. Even by sticking strictly to Codex: Eldar in a 2000pt army I can have something like 3 different sets of special rules above and beyond the actual units. Some of these occur at the start of turn, others during different phases, others are stat changes.

Thirdly, if I can barely keep track of this crap, how can I expect my opponent to? I fly some Fire Dragons at his tank, he works out in his head how many he can afford to leave alive based on the probability of 66% hit, 50% pen etc etc. It comes back around to my turn and I inform him that actually they're all BS5 and hitting 84% of the time, and rerolling armour pen rolls and adding one to the total... suddenly his maths is way off and I smoke something he didn't think I had a chance to. That's just one random example. Another would be overwatching at full BS or suddenly having a 12" run move etc etc.

Fourth, you can build some TRULY FUCKING STUPID armies with this. I'm not talking about the good old days of 10 Marines and 20 Terminators. I'm talking about armies made entirely out of Flyers, Superheavies, and other retarded crap that it's physically impossible for the bulk of an enemies army to meaningfully engage on any level. Why bother with Unbound when I can take an army made entirely out of Knights that can Skyfire, and therefore have no weakness of any kind whatsoever, while being functionally immune to 90% of weapons in the game, and impossible to delay, swamp, outmaneuver or outrun? What the hell happened to having a core of infantry to take and hold objectives, some vehicle support, and some firebase or outflanking elements? You know, strategy? An army that actually looks like, and functions like an army?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpion5 View Post
...nothing that cannot be countered one way or another.
Anything can be countered, but only by list tailoring. It is no longer possible to build an army that has a reasonable chance of success against all possible list combinations.

I never had a problem with the FOC. I had a problem with FOC *choking* where too many obviously good units were all in the same slot, or FOC starvation (the reverse) such as the old Eldar Codex with Heavy Support and FA respectively, but I never had a problem being required to take a core of infantry and a HQ while being free to build around that however I wanted without unbalancing myself too much. This current system, which makes HMRCs paperwork look positively simple, is one of maybe two/three reasons why I'm simply no longer playing 40k in any serious way, and have since moved onto X-Wing. I've even picked up Fantasy rather than play 40k regularly.

90% of people think they are above average.

Statistically Improbable. Psychologically Inevitable.
Sethis is offline  
post #20 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-02-15, 09:35 AM
Feed
 
Serpion5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Space
Posts: 10,976
Reputation: 51
Default

Tournaments have their own regulations to deal with this, like saying no super heavies or no more than two formations, no allies, etc...

Anything outside that is a for fun game, and if your opponent doesn't play to that, maybe it's worth reminding him?


I have never once seen an army brought for casual gaming that consisted of any of the things you just said. I've never seen an all flyer list, never seen an all super heavy list, the closest I've seen to that sort of thing is an all monster list but to be honest it was a tyranid list and their monsters are nowhere near as resilient as they used to be.


Nonsense is our Salvation

Serpion5 is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > General 40k

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome