Formation Detachments: The New Black

[Reclusiarch Darius]

So, after Necrons with their Decurion, we now have the Blood Host detachment for Codex: Khorne Daemonkin. 

 

It seems likely then that with 8th edition, GW will simply do away with the Force Org chart altogether. Although I regret that the game has come to this, I have to agree with them. The Force Org chart doesn't stop power builds, and it actively penalises armies with bad Troops options. It's a relic of the past, and it's death is a mercy killing. 

 

Firstly, for those still unaware, this is the new method for picking an army (at least for Necrons and the Khorne Daemonkin)

 

- 0-1 Command

- 1+ Core

- 1-X Auxilary choices (number depends on army, but it's generally high enough that you'll be able to spam whatever you like)

 

So, my question to you is, what would you like to see for Grey Knights? 

 

My initial feeling is something like this;

 

Command:

- 0-1 Grand Master or Kaldor Draigo for 'Command' (this negates the 'Lord of War' issue)

 

Core:

- Nemesis Strikeforce. So, either Librarian or Brother-Captain, then 1-9 squads of Terminator, Strike, Interceptor or Purgation in any combination. As a side note, Purgation squads would gain Deepstrike if take in this formation. Then 0-2 Stormravens, and 0-2 Dreadknights. 

 

Auxilary:

- Our Apocalypse formations re-worked as normal 40k formations, plus some new formations too. The Purifier formation would cool if revamped. I'd also like to see a Purgator formation, with some cool bonuses thrown in for them (to make up for their static deployment and mid-range issues). For the Dreadknight enthusiasts, there would be a Dreadknight Brethren formation, but re-worked to give more than Shred. 

 

 

Thoughts? This is likely to be the new way 40k armies are organised in 8th edition. Remember how Mastery Levels first appeared in our 5th edition update? Made little sense at the time, but come 6th and suddenly it was all very clear. I think the same thing is happening now. Necrons have proven it works, so now GW is gonna roll it out to every army (eventually). 

[IndigoJack]

I don't believe that the detachment of formations is going to be the only way forward. Both the harlequin and the skitarii book have unique FOC in addition to formations. Also, the rumor mill mentioned that armies with a more rigid command structure (marines, IG) will also keep a unique FOC chart rather than a detachment of formations (there has to be a better name for this). GKs rarely take to battle as a whole brotherhood, and even demi-brotherhoods are rare. For the most part, GKs are organized into strike forces, with a combination of units selected specifically for the task at hand. IMO, FOCs best represent this as you can take just one of a unit rather than the whole formation that utilizes that unit and maybe something else. Assuming a codex with perfect internal balance, a FOC would generate more diverse lists as you would never pay a tax on units that you may not want.

 

Frankly, I see our book done for a long time and any updates we get will be through campaign books where a formation is released, probably of a specific strike force used in that campaign.

[Leif Bearclaw]

Isn't it a bit premature to be getting speculative about 8th edition? We're less than a year into 7th at this point. Either we still have a goodly time before we have to worry about a new edition, or the 2 year cycle we saw with 6th is the new norm. If the latter is the case, then there are other problems wiht the game than FoC vs formation.

 

Also, GW's recent design theory seems to be centred around 'take ALL THE THINGS'. Therefore, I kinda doubt they'll be removing the FoC entirely, especially given how many alternate FoCs we've seen in the last year. Taking FoCs away would limit player choice, which goes contrary to how GW have been trying to define the hobby.

[Captain Coolpants]

I doubt they'd give us a formation other than the strike force..

 

Or if they did, it would be something like, you must take a strike force to unlock a secondary stike force (of sorts) that would be something like 1-2 squads of strikes, they auto deepstrike first turn.... Or something along those lines... And to be honest, I wouldn't mind that.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I don't believe that the detachment of formations is going to be the only way forward. Both the harlequin and the skitarii book have unique FOC in addition to formations. Also, the rumor mill mentioned that armies with a more rigid command structure (marines, IG) will also keep a unique FOC chart rather than a detachment of formations (there has to be a better name for this). GKs rarely take to battle as a whole brotherhood, and even demi-brotherhoods are rare. For the most part, GKs are organized into strike forces, with a combination of units selected specifically for the task at hand. IMO, FOCs best represent this as you can take just one of a unit rather than the whole formation that utilizes that unit and maybe something else. Assuming a codex with perfect internal balance, a FOC would generate more diverse lists as you would never pay a tax on units that you may not want.

 

That's the thing though. There is zero incentive to use the normal Force Org, when you can just break the game with Formations. Necrons take the Decurion for the same reason we take NSF, it does what we want and it avoids the issues of normal Force Org. 

 

Frankly, I see our book done for a long time and any updates we get will be through campaign books where a formation is released, probably of a specific strike force used in that campaign.

 

 

We have no 40k legal formations, except the awful Brotherhood formation in our codex. All the others are Apocalypse only. Further salt in the wound, the only good ones are the Dreadknight and Purifier ones. 

Isn't it a bit premature to be getting speculative about 8th edition? We're less than a year into 7th at this point. Either we still have a goodly time before we have to worry about a new edition, or the 2 year cycle we saw with 6th is the new norm. If the latter is the case, then there are other problems wiht the game than FoC vs formation.

 

Not at all. We're going to see Formation armies in every codex going forward, and barring missteps, they'll be a straight upgrade over using normal Force Org detachments. So, it's not just a future concern for our army. It's an immediate concern, because everyone else will be getting this treatment. We should be prepared to no longer think in terms of Force Org, if only when considering opponents.

Also, GW's recent design theory seems to be centred around 'take ALL THE THINGS'. Therefore, I kinda doubt they'll be removing the FoC entirely, especially given how many alternate FoCs we've seen in the last year. Taking FoCs away would limit player choice, which goes contrary to how GW have been trying to define the hobby.

 

How do Formation armies restrict you? They're basically free buffs, so long as you take certain units in combination. Even without a single additional special rule, it allows you to circumvent the fig leaf of Force Org in favour of spamming basically whatever you want. 

 

The issue is, even if they don't get rid of Force Org, Formation armies will functionally replace them in every faction with access to it. Look at Necrons, or Harlequins, or Khorne Daemonkin. Tell me any of them will actually use CAD anymore. 

I doubt they'd give us a formation other than the strike force.. 

 

Or if they did, it would be something like, you must take a strike force to unlock a secondary stike force (of sorts) that would be something like 1-2 squads of strikes, they auto deepstrike first turn.... Or something along those lines... And to be honest, I wouldn't mind that. 

 

Well that's what I'm saying. Our new codex in 8th (or tail end of 7th, we shall see) will have a new Formation build, just like everyone else. My feeling is, they'll make something like NSF as Core (so you need at least one anyway). Then they'll attach other Formations around it as Auxilary choices, again consistent with how they've structured other releases thus far. 

[Emicus]

I wouldn't say FOC is dead, but formations so far seem to be a lot more powerful. But then again people are adamant about objective secured being AWESOME, I just can't see it. I think the balancing act to formation is the "tax" units people are lambasting GW for, I like the concept a lot. I also can't see the core list having essentially all of the army in it, NDK's, Purifiers etc, they'll be auxiliary. Here's my imaginations' shot in the dark:

 

Command squad:

All the named characters, master and paladins? But what special rule(s)?

 

Core:

- Libriarian OR Brother-Captain

- Terminators

- Strike squad

Nemesis Strike Force special rules

 

Auxiliary, formation for everything else.

- Interceptor squad, but gaining what? Allowed to charge after shunting perhaps..

- Purifier squad, deep-strike? Probably too good, maybe as a mix with a tax unit like 1 purgation squad + 1 purifier squad = deep-strike on both.

- Purgation squad, relentless?! Useable?!

- 1-3 NDKs would be ridiculous. I mean you can't give them any more rules and allow us to take, if there is 10 auxiliary; 10 of them, or 30 of them in a legal list. Probably tied with another taxation unit. 1-2 NDK's and a squad of useless Purgators perhaps?

- Stormraven, nothing to see here, it's a stormraven.

- The dumb one you'll never play outside of Apocalypse, and only then because you had the models and this detachment exists so why the hell not for a laugh.

[Gentlemanloser]

The foc is dead.

 

GW have even told us. They gave us Unbound for a reason.

 

Yet the community is trying to hold on to the old for dear life.

 

Oh you don't like Unbound? Better get used to it. Here are some baby step formation detachments to wean you all of the foc.

 

Now buy more!

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

Isn't it a bit premature to be getting speculative about 8th edition? We're less than a year into 7th at this point. Either we still have a goodly time before we have to worry about a new edition, or the 2 year cycle we saw with 6th is the new norm. If the latter is the case, then there are other problems wiht the game than FoC vs formation.

 

Not at all. We're going to see Formation armies in every codex going forward, and barring missteps, they'll be a straight upgrade over using normal Force Org detachments. So, it's not just a future concern for our army. It's an immediate concern, because everyone else will be getting this treatment. We should be prepared to no longer think in terms of Force Org, if only when considering opponents.

Really? Where do you go for these completely accurate predictions about the future of the hobby? A few months ago everyone was saying the 7th design philosophy was about decreasing codex creep and producing a more balanced set of codexes. Then the Necrons dropped. Point being that we cannot take anything as precedent with GW, they can, have and will change their apparent design direction without warning. Hence speculation like this with absolute statements is premature at best.

 

 

 

Also, GW's recent design theory seems to be centred around 'take ALL THE THINGS'. Therefore, I kinda doubt they'll be removing the FoC entirely, especially given how many alternate FoCs we've seen in the last year. Taking FoCs away would limit player choice, which goes contrary to how GW have been trying to define the hobby.

 

How do Formation armies restrict you? They're basically free buffs, so long as you take certain units in combination. Even without a single additional special rule, it allows you to circumvent the fig leaf of Force Org in favour of spamming basically whatever you want.

 

You've answered your own question here. You need to take specific units to play the formation game, if you don't have these specific units, or they're not very good, you're out of luck. This works with Necrons, because they have very little that's poor the their book, thanks to RP and Gauss. Most other armies (as the Deamonkin have already demonstrated) aren't so lucky.

 

 

 

The issue is, even if they don't get rid of Force Org, Formation armies will functionally replace them in every faction with access to it. Look at Necrons, or Harlequins, or Khorne Daemonkin. Tell me any of them will actually use CAD anymore. 

Not the best comparisons (and not only because Harlequins cannot use CAD or Allied Detachment thanks to not having an HQ choice). Your assertion relies of every one of these hypothetical formation detachments getting a rule as BS as the Decurion. This is already false with Deamonkin. The buff they get from their Blood Tithe does not justify compulsory tax they pay in compulsory subpar units. Go read the Chaos sub forum, the consensus seems to be Deamonkin's at it's best merely cloning already effective CSM/Daemon ally rush lists. The main advantage of the Blood Host being spamming Maulerfiends and Soul Grinders, but it certainly hasn't made CAD obsolete like Decurion did for Necrons.

 

You're assuming everyone gets an option at Decurion power level. But what if the GK's get one, which only give the Psychic Brotherhood rule from the current formtion, and requires A Dreadnought, 2 Strike squads and a Brotherhood Champion? Are you seriously telling me you'd take that over a CAD?

[Emicus]

I think it all boils down to a balance issue, a player issue, or both.

We don't play CAD vs unbound because that would be silly and unfair, perhaps it will be the same with Decurion style lists going forward when more books get updated?

Or CAD objective secured simply isn't good enough, or the taxation units in the Decurion isn't bad enough, or the rules are too good.

 

I really like the Decurion style of list building, some people hate it because of the aforementioned tax units, but it's a great way of balancing in my opinion. You get the hard hitters, but are held back by the junk at the same time, get a bit of variety.. And GW is probably grinning all the way to the bank because suddenly they can sell possessed that no-one in their right mind would buy outside of fluff or modelling reasons (or so I have been told).

 

It's more options. Options are good. Just because there are options don't mean you have to take them. The rest is just agreeing how to work around the options. Unbound certainly didn't break the game, 'cause everyone more or less hiveminded: "ya' know what timmy, 'dis here unbound stuff is great an' all but we're going ter' play a normal game so bring a cad or a special formation, then you can unbound all you like next tues'", just like some people decide to not use Forgeworld, or heck how we decide how many points we are going to play.

[Gentlemanloser]

We, we all said that about unbound (Well, I didn't. ). GW saw, and went, "hmmm, they don't like unbound. let's force feed it to them in little bits with things like Formations, special faction Detachments, and oh I donno, lets make the Decurion. They can't nix stuff forever!!!".

I hate, absolutely hate, the "can't bring 3+ Riptides to my games. That's cheesy/op/beardy" mindset.

Edit:

Oh and if an option is universally ignored, it's no longer an option. It ceases to be.

[Prot]

Personally I think if GK get a new book it will accompany a new unit to sell models.... something that suits the army. Like if an Obliterator and a Grav-Centurion had a psychic baby. Something 2 wounds, very pricey, with an immense, short range psychic shooting attack. 

 

Formation wise it has definitely been getting more and more prominent. But while the Force Org chart may change, I think purely for aesthetics it will remain around in some form or another.... even if it becomes ignored one day.

 

Unfortunately I think most of the rumours about armies getting books redone already is pure crap. I think GW see getting all the books to hardcover as a done deal. Now you will either see a new book (IE: Daemonkin - which takes a book, and mashes together old models) or I think more commonly you will see Campaign tweaks to Grey Knights.

 

Before the Necron Codex came out, I bought the Baal Exterminatus. I realized that THIS was the future now that the books are hardcover. The reason I say this is because it is the easiest way for GW to sell product, without having to make new models, to 2-3 player bases in one resource.

 

Exterminatus featured rules, units, art, and background story for 3 factions at once. My playing Necrons, but not Nids nor Blood Angels/Flesh Tearers, got me to buy it.... and to be honest it was good. The Mephrit formations were pretty good before the codex came out. Balanced, and fun.

 

Therefore my vote is on Campaign books. The only caveat is they don't see to understand how to be consistent in formations, dataslates, etc, for rules. 

 

Like the Dark Angel 'Dataslates' are so incredibly bad... almost useless and poorly worded. I've found them incredibly frustrating. Yet something like Sky Blight gets banned from tournaments. The Necron Decurion (I won't use anymore) is another extreme example opposite of what Chaos/Dark Angels got. 

 

The Necron Decurion is something where you take that away from the codex and it's far more balanced, but you add it to the codex and it takes the army (as a whole!) to an incredible power level. 

 

To me the Necron Decurion is NOT what we want. So that is my only caveat. I don't want the crap Dark Angels and Chaos have been getting, but I don't want a Necron Decurion either. But that's my 2 cents... Campaign Books for everyone!

[jeffersonian000]

I think you guys are confusing the new Necron codex with being a 7th Ed codex. GW has alway released Codexes at the end of an edition that were comparable with the next edition, such as our 5th Ed codex being written with 6th in mind, or the 4th ed Chaos Marine codex being obviously a pre-5th codex. Necrons and the new Skitarii codexes are pre-8th, and we will be seeing a move into 8th later this year when GW combines the systems used for Fantasy and 40k into a single homogenous rule set. Mark my words.

 

GW has always been writing armies for the next rule edition that hasn't been released yet, like 2nd Ed Dark Eldar, which stayed playable through to 4th Ed, despite a complete system re-work with 3rd.

 

SJ

[Prot]

Ugh I sure hope not. 8th edition so soon? 

[Gentlemanloser]

7th came out (Wait Gais!!!  It's not a new Edition!!!  Honest!!!) far too early anyway.

 

Why do you expect 8th to go back to a longer timeframe?

 

Everyone's doing it.  Even Blizzard.  a crap expansion, no content, costs more, and has half the shelf life of previous expansions.

 

It's all the rage to milk money these days.

[Adeptus]

We, we all said that about unbound (Well, I didn't. ). GW saw, and went, "hmmm, they don't like unbound. let's force feed it to them in little bits with things like Formations, special faction Detachments, and oh I donno, lets make the Decurion. They can't nix stuff forever!!!".

I hate, absolutely hate, the "can't bring 3+ Riptides to my games. That's cheesy/op/beardy" mindset.

Edit:

Oh and if an option is universally ignored, it's no longer an option. It ceases to be.

So I guess Unbound is no longer an option then :P

[Gentlemanloser]

If the community as a whole choose to ignore it.  Then yes, it's no longer an option.

 

Hands up if you guys here would always play an Unbound opponent?

[Emicus]

That's the thing isn't it it's an OPTION, and you agree with your opponent before the game what sort of game it is going to be.

How many points?

Unbound, cad, decurions, forgeworld, "beardy list", whatever you like.

You want maelstrom or eternal war?

Should we just do long edges or do you wanna roll for it mate?

"ah crap it's the Emperors Football, should we just re-roll?"

 

I can't vouch for everyone but that's a fairly common pre-game talk at my FLGS.

 

As for 8th edition, I hope not. I'd like for the rules themselves to stagnate completely, balance all the 'dexes around it and be happy. New editions all the time changes too much! New missions and story moving forward (hah!) can come via expansions.. new models is dataslates.

 

Oh and Gentlemanloser, I won't always play an unbound opponent, I won't always play eternal war, I won't always play anything. That'd be boring. As for the 'cheesy-list-good-units-competitive-style' gameplay that is perfectly fine and great, but I think that is also something to agree upon before the game. If randumb-fluff-guy want's to forge the narrative with a funny/fluffy list, and I'd like to pull out the ballsiest list in the universe, that isn't going to be a very good game for either of us. It isn't that winning isn't great, but for me it feels better to win when I'm on an even (or worse!) footing with my opponent. It's bringing a rifle to a fencing game, sort of ruins it. Doesn't mean rifles are OP and should be outlawed, it's just a different context.

 

​​

[Adeptus]

If the community as a whole choose to ignore it.  Then yes, it's no longer an option.

 

Hands up if you guys here would always play an Unbound opponent?

 

I've never yet played with, or against, an unbound army. No one in my group uses them. It's (locally at least) a completely ignored option.

[Gentlemanloser]

No one in my group uses them. It's (locally at least) a completely ignored option.

I rest my case.

That'd be boring. As for the 'cheesy-list-good-units-competitive-style' gameplay that is perfectly fine and great, but I think that is also something to agree upon before the game. If randumb-fluff-guy want's to forge the narrative with a funny/fluffy list, and I'd like to pull out the ballsiest list in the universe, that isn't going to be a very good game for either of us.

So you're a GK player running NSF with Libby, GKT and NDK.

Are you a good unit competitive army? How do you dumb it down? How do you decide when you've reached a point where your list is now bad enough to be a good match to your opponents list?

[Emicus]

It doesn't have to be GK just because it is the army I currently play, it can be anything. It's also not a perfect science "dumbing down" a list, but I reckon we've all got a gut feeling about such things.
​Take an example of a 1k point game I played last week against a new player, he was using Ravenwing. I thought he was all loaded up on plasma on his bikes (it's what I would do!), with a MM attack bike, a land speeder with bolter/missiles, Sammaels flying jet-ski, nephilim jetfighter and a dreadnought with twin autocannons for air defence. I thought to myself that with his darned mobility I'd never be able to close with terminators, so NDK's it would have to be. Sanctuary for days and hope to live to hit close combat and wreck him hard. I brought two, as anyone would. I wanted to see how a stormraven could live up to anti air autocannons and a nephilim so I chucked that in, thinking it'd be eaten but what the heck.

 

He had decided to be too good for plasmaguns and was running flamers, and power weapons on the sarges. I lost one model all game and it was a total walk over. I felt bad afterwards because it was his second game and I had annihilated him utterly. If I could go back (and I might this week!) I'm going to swap an NDK for some interceptors at least, I think that might swing the balance. Heck 2x 5 terminators, 10 interceptors, libby and inquisitor even.

 

For reference I don't view myself as a competitive player in any way, I'm a happy, naive little newbie that's just trying to sink some teeth deep into the hobby :) It's meant to be fun, people like different things, we've got options, make the best of it. Except mould-lines, those are death.

[jeffersonian000]

The most one sided game I've ever had was my 1500 point Water Warrior GK versus 1500 points of TAC Ultramarines. I never disembarked. Three Land Raiders, half my army, preceded to dismantle his balanced Ultramarine list. I did not lose a single model. We both agreed that game sucked.

 

Not all match ups are fair, not all shots hit, and not all hits wound. The fun games, though, are the ones where either side could have win at any point, up to the end, where the winner is decided after reviewing what actually happened. Those are the best games!

 

SJ

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

He had decided to be too good for plasmaguns and was running flamers, and power weapons on the sarges. I lost one model all game and it was a total walk over.

 

So he decided to down power his army, because he thought it would be too good, and lost terribly for it.

 

The moral of the story right there.

[Emicus]

I'm sorry Gentlemanloser but that is not the point. I'm not sure how I can explain my viewpoint further. I hope everyone enjoys the hobby and do what they like best, but saying that another part of the hobby doesn't exist or is inferior because you don't play it or enjoy it yourself is very narrow minded. Unbound isn't for you, fine, don't play it, but don't complain either, same goes for every other part.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Really? Where do you go for these completely accurate predictions about the future of the hobby? A few months ago everyone was saying the 7th design philosophy was about decreasing codex creep and producing a more balanced set of codexes. Then the Necrons dropped. Point being that we cannot take anything as precedent with GW, they can, have and will change their apparent design direction without warning. Hence speculation like this with absolute statements is premature at best.

Who? I never said that, and I'd laugh openly at anyone trying to claim that. Considering 6th edition consisted almost entirely of 'xenos are now your god, bow before them', and 7th did nothing to change that trend. Well, except Orks. But they're used to being left out in the cold, they get by anyway with solid core builds that keep them in the middle of the meta always.

I agree that GW do make sudden about-faces in rules design, and they're erratic and irrational. But this trend of 'xenos are king' is known and easily demonstrated by 6th and 7th thus far. Also, super special snowflake 'free buffs no drawbacks' Formations were a thing before Necrons got their Decurion insanity. Remember the Tau formation that is basically Riptide+2x Broadside teams with Preferred Enemy Space Marine and Tank Hunters because...reasons? There are other examples, but that's one of the most disgustingly pushed ones.

It's not premature to claim that Formation armies are a thing. Decurion has proven they work, and it's probably the most broken example we'll get. I expect later versions, say when Eldar and Tau get updated, to be less stupid. Well, I hope at least. Marines will get something decent I'm sure, they already have great Formations.

You've answered your own question here. You need to take specific units to play the formation game, if you don't have these specific units, or they're not very good, you're out of luck. This works with Necrons, because they have very little that's poor the their book, thanks to RP and Gauss. Most other armies (as the Deamonkin have already demonstrated) aren't so lucky.

How does that limit player choice? Yes, if the units are bad (hi Destroyers), no one will take them anyway, in a FOC army or a Formation army. That doesn't change the fact most of the good Formations are a straight upgrade over CAD. Daemonkin is pretty awful, I feel bad for any CSM players buying into the hype. Crimson Slaughter look amazing by comparison.

Not the best comparisons (and not only because Harlequins cannot use CAD or Allied Detachment thanks to not having an HQ choice). Your assertion relies of every one of these hypothetical formation detachments getting a rule as BS as the Decurion. This is already false with Deamonkin. The buff they get from their Blood Tithe does not justify compulsory tax they pay in compulsory subpar units. Go read the Chaos sub forum, the consensus seems to be Deamonkin's at it's best merely cloning already effective CSM/Daemon ally rush lists. The main advantage of the Blood Host being spamming Maulerfiends and Soul Grinders, but it certainly hasn't made CAD obsolete like Decurion did for Necrons.

I was saying in design terms, not in power level. Of course Harlequins will just be an amusing Eldar Ally, they're not a real army at all. Neither are Daemonkin, they'll mainly be used as you say to make the same builds people already do with CAD and Ally armies. Anyway, you can still take a CAD and spam Obliterators to help it out etc. CSM at least have broken units as a crutch. It's better than some armies, who have nothing good.

You're assuming everyone gets an option at Decurion power level. But what if the GK's get one, which only give the Psychic Brotherhood rule from the current formtion, and requires A Dreadnought, 2 Strike squads and a Brotherhood Champion? Are you seriously telling me you'd take that over a CAD?

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm hoping that if we figure our what we want from our update, we can generate interest around it enough to make GW take notice and MAYBE implement some of it. They do read the forums, although I won't pretend we influence things that much. But I'd rather avoid the awfulness/mediocrity that is our Apoc formations being repeated. Right now? Of course I'm always taking NSF ;) CAD is literally useless to us, same for Ally detachment.

I really like the Decurion style of list building, some people hate it because of the aforementioned tax units, but it's a great way of balancing in my opinion. You get the hard hitters, but are held back by the junk at the same time, get a bit of variety.. And GW is probably grinning all the way to the bank because suddenly they can sell possessed that no-one in their right mind would buy outside of fluff or modelling reasons (or so I have been told).

What drawbacks? What tax? Point to a single aspect of Decurion that isn't straight upgrade. The Reclamation Legion is good stuff all day erry day. The Royal Court is entirely optional, but gives you heaps of flexiblity. The Auxilary choices are all optional, and barring some missteps no one cares about (the Destroyer and Flayed One formations are basically blank), all of the Formations you can take are 'free buffs, get your free buffs here'. It's pushed as hard as they can.

It's more options. Options are good. Just because there are options don't mean you have to take them. The rest is just agreeing how to work around the options. Unbound certainly didn't break the game, 'cause everyone more or less hiveminded: "ya' know what timmy, 'dis here unbound stuff is great an' all but we're going ter' play a normal game so bring a cad or a special formation, then you can unbound all you like next tues'", just like some people decide to not use Forgeworld, or heck how we decide how many points we are going to play.

True, and Unbound is shunned by the players because it's a useless format. We already have Apocalypse for 'lol I don't care who wins, I wanna remove handfuls of stuff every turn and laugh at RNG happenings'. Also, Apoc is at a point level where all armies can take their super units and stuff like Titans and just throw dice. Unbound is stupid because it's basically who has more money. At least in Apoc, not everyone can afford triple turbo-laser Reavers, and no one likes those guys anyway ;)

We, we all said that about unbound (Well, I didn't. ). GW saw, and went, "hmmm, they don't like unbound. let's force feed it to them in little bits with things like Formations, special faction Detachments, and oh I donno, lets make the Decurion. They can't nix stuff forever!!!".

I hate, absolutely hate, the "can't bring 3+ Riptides to my games. That's cheesy/op/beardy" mindset.

Nah, what they actually thought was;

"Damn, no one is buying the battleboxes to play Unbound with? What do we do?

"Hell, lets make battleboxes legal to staple together in Battle-Forged"

"....I dunno, won't that punish armies without good Formations?"

"All in good time. We can't bleed everyone's wallets at once"

Personally I think if GK get a new book it will accompany a new unit to sell models.... something that suits the army. Like if an Obliterator and a Grav-Centurion had a psychic baby. Something 2 wounds, very pricey, with an immense, short range psychic shooting attack.

I really hope not. I still hear people moan about DK's. Yeah really, this deep in 7th, people complain about something that happened in 5th. Le sigh.

Honestly, we don't need new box sets. We just need our existing roster to not be 'why don't you take a DK instead' roulette. Purgators and Strikes need some love.

Unfortunately I think most of the rumours about armies getting books redone already is pure crap. I think GW see getting all the books to hardcover as a done deal. Now you will either see a new book (IE: Daemonkin - which takes a book, and mashes together old models) or I think more commonly you will see Campaign tweaks to Grey Knights.

How does that make any sense? I call bull on your statement. Just because it's hardcover doesn't mean anything. By that logic, Apoc would never get updated. Maybe we and others won't get touched till 8th, I can see that happening. But we will be updated again at some point.

Before the Necron Codex came out, I bought the Baal Exterminatus. I realized that THIS was the future now that the books are hardcover. The reason I say this is because it is the easiest way for GW to sell product, without having to make new models, to 2-3 player bases in one resource.

Exterminatus featured rules, units, art, and background story for 3 factions at once. My playing Necrons, but not Nids nor Blood Angels/Flesh Tearers, got me to buy it.... and to be honest it was good. The Mephrit formations were pretty good before the codex came out. Balanced, and fun.

Therefore my vote is on Campaign books. The only caveat is they don't see to understand how to be consistent in formations, dataslates, etc, for rules.

Campaign books are great, and I like that GW is doing them again (rather than letting FW steal all their thunder with their amazing Imperial Armour series). But they're not a substitute for a codex. You said it yourself, before Decurion blew old Necron builds out of the water, Mephrit was fun and interesting. Now it's a relic for people who are keen on the lore to play. But in a competitive setting, you'll take Decurion.

Like the Dark Angel 'Dataslates' are so incredibly bad... almost useless and poorly worded. I've found them incredibly frustrating. Yet something like Sky Blight gets banned from tournaments. The Necron Decurion (I won't use anymore) is another extreme example opposite of what Chaos/Dark Angels got.

The Necron Decurion is something where you take that away from the codex and it's far more balanced, but you add it to the codex and it takes the army (as a whole!) to an incredible power level.

To me the Necron Decurion is NOT what we want. So that is my only caveat. I don't want the crap Dark Angels and Chaos have been getting, but I don't want a Necron Decurion either. But that's my 2 cents... Campaign Books for everyone!

Eh, I don't think GW is ever going to repeat Decurion. It was a mistake, and I think they've realised they pushed it too hard. I expect Eldar will get something middle of the road and fun. As for us, I'd be happy with 'not our current Formations and not as bad as DA'. I don't want OP, I'd be perfectly happy with decently powerful and fun.

I think you guys are confusing the new Necron codex with being a 7th Ed codex. GW has alway released Codexes at the end of an edition that were comparable with the next edition, such as our 5th Ed codex being written with 6th in mind, or the 4th ed Chaos Marine codex being obviously a pre-5th codex. Necrons and the new Skitarii codexes are pre-8th, and we will be seeing a move into 8th later this year when GW combines the systems used for Fantasy and 40k into a single homogenous rule set. Mark my words.

Nah, that's what I've been saying dude. 8th is going to see every army with an alternate Formation build, and we might even see the Force Org taken behind the shed.

I'm extremely skeptical about your other point. Fantasy and 40k do not belong together, they won't play nice with eachother. Then again, they did just flush the whole setting down the toilet...I wouldn't put it past them. I hope it doesn't happen.

[Gentlemanloser]

I'm sorry Gentlemanloser but that is not the point. I'm not sure how I can explain my viewpoint further. I hope everyone enjoys the hobby and do what they like best, but saying that another part of the hobby doesn't exist or is inferior because you don't play it or enjoy it yourself is very narrow minded. Unbound isn't for you, fine, don't play it, but don't complain either, same goes for every other part.

It's more that you have utterly missed mine.

I love Unbound. I'd play with or against it all day, every day, no matter what my opponent brings.

It's a core rule just as much as BS4 hits on a 3+ is. And I don't tamper with the core rules just because I don't like them.

People claim Unbound is still 'optional'. That's the mistake. That's the fallacy.

If everyone refuses to use it, it's not 'optional'. It simply no longer exists, because no one uses it.

It's also as optional as any core rule is. Like removing a unit from the board when they lose their last wound. Core rule but hey, I don't like that, so I'm going to ignore it.

Nah, what they actually thought was;

"Damn, no one is buying the battleboxes to play Unbound with? What do we do?

"Hell, lets make battleboxes legal to staple together in Battle-Forged"

"....I dunno, won't that punish armies without good Formations?"

"All in good time. We can't bleed everyone's wallets at once"

GW aren't that good mate.

It's was more like;

No ones buying the batleboxes? Why??? Must sell more!!

Er, they seem to dislike the Unbound way of making armies

But that was our method of selling everything to everyone!!!

Hmmm, must force this on them bit by bit. So we can sell the most OP units to all players, regardless of thier Faction! And still keep all the fluff bunnies happy by letting them make any old cross over army they want! Genestealer cult Go!!!