7th Edition Army Constructions

[charliemachina]

So we can now build our 40K army as follows:

Combined arms Force Org
Allies Force Org
Race Specific Force Org
Formations
Unbound
Ducurion Force Organisation

and combinations of all the above

The issue I finding is that:

Some races have better ways to construct their armies than others.
Some formations are far more powerful than others, which exist for fluff purposes only.
The race specific force Orgs tend to be a little lackluster compared to the Ducurions / some formations
People are generally wary of any unbound armies
The Ducurions are quiet inaccessible and allow little room for you to build the army you want.

I would like all this to be simplified.

I would like two choices, for example:

Unbound / Race specific force organisations only

or

Unbound / Balanced fluff based formations only

I find the current state of army building in 40K a mess. I want the freedom it all brings but I do not like that you can end up with special rules, upon special rules, upon special rules, upon re-rolls.

I would like the stats of the unit to determine it's use on the battefield and special rules be just that special rules used only to bring the fluff to the battlefield. I would like special rules to be generally few and far between.

I'm finding the current messy state of army building is meaning I am leaving some armies on the shelf more than I would like and when I do bring them out if they don't fit into a ducurion or formation i'm struggling to make them competative.....my Mono-Tzeentch Daemons, Arbites themed Astra Militarum and Chaos Marines are all examples of this.

Any thoughs on this welcome:

Cheers

Charlie

[Captain Bubonicus]

Sometimes I find myself constrained when building an army - I so want the formation bonus that I'll doggedly try to shoehorn it into a list where it doesn't belong or where the "unit tax" for taking it is simply too high.

So now I try to go in the other direction - I'll tweak a list a little bit if there's a group of units in there that would fit in one of the existing formations, but I won't go out of my way to try to earn the formation bonuses.

...Of course, I'm just a casual player - not a tourney player. I wanna put up a good fight, but I don't mind losing as long as it's a good, close game.

[Path Walker]

A Decurion Detachment was just the first type of Formation Detachment we saw, that name is specific to the Necron's one. They're there if you want them, there are plenty of other Formations or Detachments you can use, combined with Unbound, it now means you're freer than ever to build the army you want. Formations encourage fluffy play by giving bonuses for groups of units that fit certain bits of fluff.

Get used to them, I don't think they're going any where.

[Charistoph]

It would have been nice if there was a "Strike Force" book that introduced this detachment concept for all the armies at once, much like how Escalation was used to introduce Super-Heavies in to 40K, then let the releasing codices update them along the way.

GW is still doing it that way, but much slower with only a few armies every few months each release. At least the Campaign method is better than how they were doing it with just each codex.

[charliemachina]

Yeah I like alot of the changes i'm seeing from GW.

Formations are a cool idea for getting fluff based armies on the table.

I understand GW love the idea of all these different forms of army construction and it is apparent more than a few of the options are purely there to push sales.

I want to pick the army I want and throw down against my opponents army of their choice and know that the forces are at least in principle vaguely equal.

I feel having Formations grant special rules that are further augumented by additional special rules results in massive imbalance you get armies that can:

Field 600pts worth of FREE Ad Mech specalist weapons
Field 550pts worth of FREE Marine Rhinos, Razorbacks or Drop Pods
Field an army of Necrons that can just keep on getting back up no matter what is thrown at it
Field armies that can re-roll 2+ saves everyturn due to never failing to get off psychic powers

Are these bonuses fair????

I want to play with all my toys

I want you to be able to play with all your toys.

I want to get excited and buy new toys.

I feel the current mess of army building methods has unbalanced the game massively and allows and encourages massive opportunities for rules exploitation.

I feel the best method for amry building would be:

Unbound

and

Formations

only.

I feel the formations should only exist to allow armies to work in a certain way and not just ramp power levels up through the roof resulting in one person bringing 1500pts and ending up fighting 2100pts or other painful imbalance.

Do people think there are other ways to simplify army construction without encouraging imbalance???

Do people think the current mess of army building options is as it should be or could it be improved???

Do people actually get to build the armies they want currently or are there still obstacles to this???

Cheers

Charlie

[Cactus]

There were the same problems long before formations and detachments were introduced to the game. It's not a new problem.

Power builds, min/maxing, codex creep, and newer armies having more/better rules than older codexes have always been part of the game.

Short of issuing a new rules set and complete set of codexes at once, theses problems are going to exist. I think the recent campaign books are trying to help everyone out but it's going to take time before everyone gets an update.

There are several things you can be sure of:
It's a big game.
There will be changes to the rules and your codex.

Don't panic and throw extra question marks at the end of sentences because you're frustrated. Try your best to enjoy the game and have a good time playing.

[Popsical]

Simplest solution to the whole problem? AoS 40k. Carry on releasing campaign books to give new formations and units. Scrap codexs and points.
Let everyone play sandpit games with the formations they like based on the stories they like.
Its coming, and i think we all know it is very very possible in the next few years.
How many of you started playing with models on your bedroom floors or parents dining room table, using no points or orgs?
I can safely say EVERYONE i know who collects this plastic crack did. We watched war films as children and acted the battles out with our minis with little regard for balance or points costs. We fought operation market garden on the bedroom floor with space marines and orcs as the adversaries. Do you know what? It was fun. It was narrative based and scenario specific gaming which is what GW openly want their games to be. The fact that GW openly confess they dont give a rats about tournament gaming gives you quite a hint that balance isnt their concern.

[Path Walker]

Simplest solution to the whole problem? AoS 40k. Carry on releasing campaign books to give new formations and units. Scrap codexs and points.
Let everyone play sandpit games with the formations they like based on the stories they like.
Its coming, and i think we all know it is very very possible in the next few years.
How many of you started playing with models on your bedroom floors or parents dining room table, using no points or orgs?
I can safely say EVERYONE i know who collects this plastic crack did. We watched war films as children and acted the battles out with our minis with little regard for balance or points costs. We fought operation market garden on the bedroom floor with space marines and orcs as the adversaries. Do you know what? It was fun. It was narrative based and scenario specific gaming which is what GW openly want their games to be. The fact that GW openly confess they dont give a rats about tournament gaming gives you quite a hint that balance isnt their concern.

Pretty much this, now that the idiots have gone, Age of Sigmar is a lot of fun and you know what, it doesn't matter one jot that things don't have points because you work with your opponent to make a fun game.

[grimmas]

Warhammer (either type) was never designed to be balanced by a points system. The points were added to aid the GM to write fun scenarios. The use of points by players to formulate balanced armies is a retro fit. 40K is has just too much variation across units who's value is just too subjective and situational for the point system to cope with without it been anything other than a guide.

[thirdman]

I'd go for a system more akin to that found in Warhammer Fantasy / Historical. Units are either HQ, Core, Support or Rare depending on the list, and there are limits on the number of points that can be spent in each type.

For example, no more than 25% of the list can come from HQ or Support, no more than 10% from Rare, and Core has to have at least 50% spent on it.

You can have different lists for each faction, where units might be Core in one variant but Support in another.

[Katharon]

I still just use the normal Force Organization Chart (which is now called the Combined Arms Detachment, I suppose). In my opinion, it would be simpler to simply have the FoC and Formations. Those "detachments" and "decurions" could be re-classified as "formations". Allied FoC would remain the same, as it is an extension of the regular FoC.

Seems simple to me.

[grimmas]

I'd go for a system more akin to that found in Warhammer Fantasy / Historical. Units are either HQ, Core, Support or Rare depending on the list, and there are limits on the number of points that can be spent in each type.

For example, no more than 25% of the list can come from HQ or Support, no more than 10% from Rare, and Core has to have at least 50% spent on it.

You can have different lists for each faction, where units might be Core in one variant but Support in another.

Second ed had a similar system. It went even further with the Guard where each infantry squad allowed you to pick a "support" unit (tank, abhumans etc). Of course 2nd was notoriously unbalanced towards heroes