Formations: good or bad? - 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 #1 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-22-15, 02:30 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Fallen's Avatar
Fallen's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,689
Reputation: 19
Default Formations: good or bad?

Out of curiosity, from a now effective outsider on most things 40k, what are people's general opinion on the use/requirement/design element/abuse/etc on GW's "new" stance on how formations work?

I am far beyond a "regular" 40k player anymore - I do not even own a 7th ed rule book, and I have played maybe 3 games of it - yet I find myself still immersed in 40k. I struggle to find the necessity to have the "diverseness" (although I am sure that there is a better word to use here) for how the formation is set up; such as the Necron decurion or the Eldar battle force thing-y.

I think that in part I enjoy a more "standard" set of what is/isn't in a formation, like the formations from the original Apoc book and Apoc Reloaded; well at least the smaller ones, I would rather have a couple default "small" formations (3-5 units each), instead of the wild west style that I see today.

Part of the "problem" that I see is that there are way too many additional rules due to the stacking effect that being able to take multiple formations within a formation.

I guess that I am just a fan of the ol' standard Force org chart...

----

I do think that each race/faction should have it's own special Force Org chart that it can use with a minor buff, akin to the DE thing/formation that is really close to this, but not have any specific unit requirements.

----

Edit: Perhaps it could be phrased as "Do formations, that are in the same vein as the Necron decurion, a good or bad thing for armies to have?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilbatte
if you squint the Sigmar stuff doesn't all look like the love children from a Necron and Blood Angel orgy.

Last edited by Fallen; 05-22-15 at 10:27 PM.
Fallen is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-22-15, 10:01 AM
Senior Member
 
Xabre's Avatar
Xabre's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,848
Reputation: 72
Default

Personally, I love them. I've been accused (on these boards) of being an 'elitest' because I dislike Unbound, but honestly with the continuing release of detachments and formations, I think it allows you to make some amazing ideas. You don't NEED Unbound unless all you want to do is spam one or two units over and over again. I think the idea that there are SOME restrictions, but you can mix and match to make some great options, especially with the unique Detachments as well.

What I mostly dislike are the 'Decurions' that we have so far; the Necrons, the Khorne Daemonkin, Craftworld, and I'm sure every codex written from here out. Those take it a little too far, because it writes your entire list for you. The new super formation in Cult Mechanicus is another example; you MUST take two very pre-determined formations and one not-very-variable detachment to get your bonuses. In that case, everyone at the same points value has the same list.


It reminds me a little bit of old school D&D, from 3, 3.5, Pathfinder. You get your 20 levels (2000 points or whatever). You pick your class (faction). Now you can fill it with your base class, your feats, your prestige classes... I used to love making characters like that and seeing what crazy combinations I could do. Taking this analogy to unbound is like saying 'ok, one level of fighter, one level of ranger, one level of psionic...'

Xabre is offline  
post #3 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-22-15, 12:02 PM
Senior Member
 
fatmantis's Avatar
fatmantis's Flag is: New Zealand
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Shenzhen china
Posts: 1,755
Reputation: 47
Default

personally i hated the old FOC..it was too restrictive..i always thought i wish i could do this or that..and when you would see list its was always the same argument take x over y becuase x is better...but now with formations i love the freedom (in some cases) to really build the army that you want..im more in to themed armies now so it really gives me that chance..im not worried about unboune but as was mentioned you dont really need it.

yes the latest codexs are taking it a bit far..but thats only if you want those bonuses..im all for it..the more options the better..as long as there is a so called point and GW doesnt start releasing them to simply make money(yes i know laugh)....
well just my thoughs
fatmantis is offline  
 
post #4 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-22-15, 01:17 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

I love the formations, it variablility to the game and something new.
But the thing I don't like that most of the formations are too big. It would be better if the formations were only few units and ridiculously many model e.g. 5 lictors as a formation (actually 5 lictors are required in two different formations). - Which will cost you 77.5 as a new player. For existing players - before you needed only three in your army it essentially forces the existing players to buy to more, if they want to use the formation.

There are same examples in other factions as well, just to push their sales. But hey sometimes the formations fit your current army and you can take the joy of it.

It would be nice that formations for a faction would be once a year collected in to a single book or added to the codex - not scattered around in WD, supplements and other books.

Formations are a good idea and I love them, but I'd just wish they'd be smaller in unit composition.
Drohar is offline  
post #5 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-22-15, 05:05 PM
Rattlehead
 
MidnightSun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Sheoth
Posts: 6,741
Reputation: 83
Default

I like the race-specific FOC charts with corresponding Command Benefits, and Formations in themselves are cool and I like them. However, the availability of formations as plug-ins, as well as the whole concept/implementation of Allies, is bad for the game in my view.

Creator of Utilitarian Ultramarines Memes - join the XIII on Facebook (no XVII allowed).
MidnightSun is offline  
post #6 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-22-15, 09:40 PM
Senior Member
 
falcoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,384
Reputation: 23
Default

I like race specific FoCs and oneor two smaller formations as a part of a codex, but with the Decurio style detachments, they are amazing, so everyon that plays the army has the exact same list making playing with the army incredibly boring. It's one of the main reasons why I stopped playing necrons, as I was literally making my lists worse to make it fun to play with, making the army not at all interesting competitively.

The reason I like FoCs is that it gives the army a structure. I have never ever found it restricting, certainly not like on a scale Fantasy is. It gives a way of structuring the army without it being too specific, as you can take what you want and still get the same benefits, meaning those armies have much more variety.

Me: To be honest im amazed there isn't a chaos god of not revising or at least chaos god of procrastination

MidnightSun: There will be, when enough people do it. Y'know when the Eldar were all engaging in their hedonism and Slaanesh ripped open the Eye of Terror with his creation? Slaanesh will have NOTHING on the God of Procrastination, and his vile minions will carve the galaxy asunder in a thousand year reign of blood.... Tomorrow
falcoso is offline  
post #7 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-22-15, 10:57 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Fallen's Avatar
Fallen's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,689
Reputation: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xabre View Post
Personally, I love them...but honestly with the continuing release of detachments and formations, I think it allows you to make some amazing ideas...

What I mostly dislike are the 'Decurions' that we have so far; the Necrons, the Khorne Daemonkin, Craftworld, and I'm sure every codex written from here out. Those take it a little too far, because it writes your entire list for you...In that case, everyone at the same points value has the same list
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatmantis View Post
personally i hated the old FOC..it was too restrictive..i always thought i wish i could do this or that..and when you would see list its was always the same argument take x over y becuase x is better...but now with formations i love the freedom (in some cases) to really build the army that you want..im more in to themed armies now so it really gives me that chance.

Fatmantis, I am curious on how much the difference between the Force Org (Combined arms detachment?) of 6th edition and/or a race specific Force Org that it also has access too, and say with a 0-1 slot for a formation, vs the current model of army list building. Feel free to respond in the thread or via PM since this is not necessarily an on topic conversation.

yes the latest codexs are taking it a bit far..but thats only if you want those bonuses..im all for it..the more options the better..as long as there is a so called point and GW doesnt start releasing them to simply make money(yes i know laugh)....
well just my thoughs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drohar View Post
I love the formations, it variablility to the game and something new.
But the thing I don't like that most of the formations are too big. It would be better if the formations were only few units and ridiculously many model e.g. 5 lictors as a formation (actually 5 lictors are required in two different formations). - Which will cost you 77.5 as a new player. For existing players - before you needed only three in your army it essentially forces the existing players to buy to more, if they want to use the formation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidnightSun View Post
I like the race-specific FOC charts with corresponding Command Benefits, and Formations in themselves are cool and I like them. However, the availability of formations as plug-ins, as well as the whole concept/implementation of Allies, is bad for the game in my view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by falcoso View Post
I like race specific FoCs and one or two smaller formations as a part of a codex, but with the Decurio style detachments, they are amazing, so everyone that plays the army has the exact same list making playing with the army incredibly boring. It's one of the main reasons why I stopped playing necrons, as I was literally making my lists worse to make it fun to play with, making the army not at all interesting competitively.

The reason I like FoCs is that it gives the army a structure. I have never ever found it restricting, certainly not like on a scale Fantasy is. It gives a way of structuring the army without it being too specific, as you can take what you want and still get the same benefits, meaning those armies have much more variety.
----

So currently, it appears that the majority of the players enjoy having, and using, formations. Most however do NOT the route that GW went with in regards to formations of the caliber of the Necron Decurion; since formations of this size effectively "force" players into playing the same army as everyone else - at least in the competitive sense - and therefore effectively reduce the amount of diversity in armies.

----

Out of curiosity how interested would the players here/in their own gaming circles, if I asked them to create "mini formations" in the vein that Drohar mentioned? Having a max of 5 "units" in a formation and it can't be included into a greater formation (such as the Decurion) being the only rules?

For example:

Death Wing Formation (not sure if these cost points to field anymore, but if they do say 50 points + units)
1-5 Death Wing Terminators/Inner Circle (Or whatever the more badass Terminators are called)

Units that are solely within the Death Wing Formation gain +1 to all Invulnerable saves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilbatte
if you squint the Sigmar stuff doesn't all look like the love children from a Necron and Blood Angel orgy.
Fallen is offline  
post #8 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-22-15, 11:29 PM
Rattlehead
 
MidnightSun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Sheoth
Posts: 6,741
Reputation: 83
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen View Post
So currently, it appears that the majority of the players enjoy having, and using, formations. Most however do NOT the route that GW went with in regards to formations of the caliber of the Necron Decurion; since formations of this size effectively "force" players into playing the same army as everyone else - at least in the competitive sense - and therefore effectively reduce the amount of diversity in armies.
Not quite so in my case - I have no problem with formations in themselves, but I don't like the Allies system and the fact that a Formation occasionally crops up that cherry-picks the best unit from another Codex and lets you bring it in a totally different faction (Canoptek Harvest and more infamously, Firebase Support Cadre).

I preferred pre-6th edition where your faction had inherent strengths that you had to learn to utilise and weaknesses that you had to learn to mitigate, rather than 'Tau has no aggressive melee threats; I know, I'll bring a squad of Wraiths and a Tomb Spyder, that'll sort it out'.

Creator of Utilitarian Ultramarines Memes - join the XIII on Facebook (no XVII allowed).
MidnightSun is offline  
post #9 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-23-15, 01:16 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Fallen's Avatar
Fallen's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,689
Reputation: 19
Default

I said majority.

you enjoy formations, just not in the capacity that they are delivered in the current codexs.

Also if a Tau player wanted to add in a non tau formation as the only thing "allied" I would call hacks on him. I feel that goes above and beyond bad sportsmanship.

or anything that would result in the above scenario - aka not just against the Tau.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilbatte
if you squint the Sigmar stuff doesn't all look like the love children from a Necron and Blood Angel orgy.
Fallen is offline  
post #10 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-23-15, 02:47 AM
JUGGERNUT
 
venomlust's Avatar
venomlust's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,558
Reputation: 32
Default

I like formations. Some have rules that are too strong IMO, others too weak.


SUFFER NOT THE PONY TO LIVE.

- - AMATEUR KHORNESTAR: MY BLOG THING - -
venomlust 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