# Formations: good or bad?



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

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?"


----------



## Xabre (Dec 20, 2006)

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...'


----------



## fatmantis (Jun 26, 2009)

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


----------



## Drohar (Jan 22, 2014)

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.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

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.


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

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.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

Xabre said:


> 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





fatmantis said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





Drohar said:


> *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.





MidnightSun said:


> 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*.





falcoso said:


> *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.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Fallen said:


> 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'.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

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.


----------



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)

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


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

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.


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

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.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

ItsPug said:


> 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.


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

MidnightSun said:


> 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.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

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.


----------



## Creator of Chaos (Feb 8, 2012)

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.


----------



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)

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.


----------



## Drohar (Jan 22, 2014)

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


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

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?



Serpion5 said:


> ...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.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

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.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Last two games I played at the local club were against 4 Knights and Njal, and a Tyranid list with 9 Monstrous Creatures in 1850pts. Not really my idea of fun, and any game system that requires agreements between players as to what they will and will not take in order for both players to have a chance is a broken system as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Tyriks (Dec 9, 2015)

I'm definitely coming to this conversation late, but it was interesting reading through everyone's thoughts and thinking about my own (which I hadn't really thought through as of yet).

I agree that allies, in most situations, are dumb. Both for balance and fluff. I think it wouldn't be as bad if the restrictions were worse (like if you made battle brothers operate as allies of convenience, and downgrade everyone else a step, but make come the apocalypse just not able to ally). It seems like GW might even use allies to get lazy (i.e. Ad Mech have no transports, why bother making some for them when they can just ally in SM for rhinos or drop pods?). 

As for formations, I kind of love/hate them. I love the idea and I love a lot of instances of them. I don't mind the huge strict formations either. What I do mind is the lack of options. SM have like a dozen options in their codex, and Dark Eldar get one, and it's your whole army. That's just plain shitty. When I read the C:SM, I just thought every faction would have as much variety, but they don't, and it's hugely disappointing.


----------



## Rush Darling (Apr 30, 2015)

Good thread! These discussions come up fairly regularly at my local gaming group, and it's great to have some more input.

Fortunately we don't seem to have too many issues with allies (the only two armies in my collection are Raptors and Tyranids, and I deserve whatever I get for trying to play those together) the only allied player we have tends to throw down with Grey Knights and Space Wolves (Yes, highly unfluffy, we've tried explaining) and I can thoroughly testify that theres a REASON Grey Knights don't get drop pods (Combat squadded purifiers spamming novas are OUCH, gg nids)

With regards to formations and super detachments (decurions), I generally like them, though some don't seem very well thought out.

First and foremost, I tend to find it depends on who you're playing. If you take a full super detachment set of rules against a 6th edition codex, it can sometimes feel a little one sided. Its entirely possible that I've just faced off against bad lists in these engagements (predominantly orks and nids), but those are my thoughts for a penny. (pay me, pay me now.)

I find running purely formations quite restrictive, and as this is a requirement for the super detachments, by extension I find those equally restrictive. My preferred method (I'm assuming this is far from uncommon) is running a CAD with Formations in support. Admittedly formations like the battle demi-company are ridiculously close to CADs themselves, but having the flexibility to throw say, a single anti-flyer tank (my favourite example) into the list is what makes always taking a CAD shine for me.

Releasing larger formations with shiny rules and components than you might be missing does encourage you to buy models you don't already own, but so do box sets and heck even new model releases, neither of which get slapped with the "pay to win" sticker as often as formations do. Although admittedly alot of box sets seem inclusive of formations these days.

At the end of the day, you're supposed to have fun together.I'll play against anything (except fire raptors, grrrrr), but the dice gods have a special place for people who bring death stars composed of characters from 8 different codices, and if you bring this level of Stilton repeatedly / against newer players, don't be surprised if they find better things to do.


----------

