Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
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...:cray:

----

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?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
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...'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,755 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
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.
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
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
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
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.
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.
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.
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
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'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,115 Posts
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.
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,115 Posts
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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,978 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
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 :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,190 Posts
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?

...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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,978 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top