Hi all, I've noticed that a lot of information on unlocking formation variants is becoming available as the Japanese guide is painstakingly translated and posted. I've added the requirements for a couple of formations (Anchor of Celapaleis and Box/Cage, chosen because they're the least and most complicated respectively).
Also, I may play around with the general page layout to make it look a little less like it's been lifted straight out of the guide ;-)
Anyone have any opinions before I go ahead?
Ferret37 19:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC).

Looks good so far, I was wondering if it's worthwhile to make somekind of template first and create some mediawiki-createplate for easy creation of new formations. I was thinking of multiple templates, 1 on infobox, 1 for formation and their varient requirements, 1 for unit position, 1 for General Attribute Differences Per Position and 1 for Effects And Attribute Differences By Formation Variant. The reason for multiple templates is it will be easier to add stuff and rearrange the page at a later stage Sarmu 19:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the original layout was Andrea's, all I did was add the requirements. I'm not too worried about ease of adding stuff as I tend to just cut and paste what I've already got, so I don't think the mediawiki-createplate is necessary (I'll be taking the info from the guide, so once they're all done there won't be any need for easy entry).
Point taken about templates making it easier to rearrange though. I like what you've done so far with unit positions.
General Attribute Differences Per Position could probably go in the infobox if the table was turned on its side - I'll have a crack at that now.
My main concern is that we're going to have to add a whole load of categories to leaders. I have no problem with manually tacking it on the the end. The question is, as it's hidden information, do we want to put it in the leaders' infobox? Same goes for defence ratings.
Ferret37 22:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC).

Hey someone forgot Hangman's Noose Formation

Obviously when I said "I'll have a crack at it now", I meant "I'll have a crack at it after I've trawled through half the bestiary"...
Really looking at it now...
Ferret37 00:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

there is a slight problem with General Attribute Differences Per Position going into infobox, since if we are going to put all variants of the formation into the same page, the values will be different in each variants, eg for box formation leader(1) will have + on Mys but ++ on Mys in cage formation. The only thing that's consistent between variant is the unit positions. Also i'm having slight problem on Effects And Attribute Differences By Formation Variant, first where do you find the % value? it's not even in the guide, 2nd problem is using vanguard as example, it will have a -- on Int in position 2 and 3, but a + on Int in position 4 and 5. Sarmu 01:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it works going into the infobox. I don't know where you got "+" and "++" from, all I'm suggesting putting in the infobox is "gets better", "gets worse" or "stays the same". So, +, - and blank. As far as I can see, this is consistent across all variants. The % value is in the guide.
"-" on 2 & 3 with "+" on 4 & 5 is not a problem either. Give me a few minutes to get the infobox into shape and you'll see what I mean.
Ferret37 01:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC).
The + and ++ is from the japanese guide, so field has + meaning small increase and ++ means big increase. same with -, it's got - and --. Anyway i'll wait and see what you come up with Sarmu 01:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm using the UK publication by Brady which doesn't have "+"/"++", but does have the percentages. Yay, there's a way the western guide is better than the Japanese!
I suggest sticking with a single "+" or "-" in the infobox, we don't need double plusses when we've got the percentages in a separate section.
The infobox is kind of doing my head in at the moment, I may not finish it until tomorrow morning...
Ferret37 01:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

Take your time, I'm not in a hurry, I want to work on soldier first Sarmu 01:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also is the UK brandy same as the US one or it's updated

Couldn't tell you, I've never seen the US version. If you don't have formations on pages 216-234 then we're looking at different books.
It was colspan that was the culprit, think I'm getting somewhere now...
Ferret37 02:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

Wow a lot of chat! Edit

Woo I just got here and seen all this chat. I skimmed through most of it and just trying to sort through what's been decided ^_^

So can someone give me a brief overview? I can't figure out if we're wanting it moved to infoboxes or not and slightly confused about requirements and the comment on the leaders pages... so if they could be explained brilliant! (I don't quite get what's meant by x3 mystic

Also, I'm planning on creating more of these now that the basic organisation has been done and everything (I think) links back to the category Browse, but I'll hold off til I know if we're doing it by infobox or not to help users that may want to edit the page.

Andrealinia970 02:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's been decided yet, we're still throwing ideas around. I think I've got the rough shape for an infobox sorted (Template:Infobox formation, currently contains raw data for the Vanguard formation, I'll sort out the actual template stuff when we've agreed what's going in it).
Each member of a union (heroes/leaders/soldiers) has one or more of five "formation requirement stats", these being Physical, Mystic, Agility, Recovery and Speed. As you'd imagine, the higher profile characters have more of them (Rush has all five, most unique leaders (the ones with mini-biographies) have 2-5, most generic leaders and soldiers have two).
So if you look at the formations I linked to earlier, you'll see some dead links I've set for categories that don't exist yet.
The basic rules are, you need to fulfull the requirements however you want to, units can satisfy more than one requirement at once. For example, if you were trying for Cage III and selected Caedmon as the leader, he would fulfill the requirements 1x Mystic, 1x Sovani, Union Leader does not have Special. So now all you need to do is find a Mitra, a Yama and a Qsiti, all of whom have Mystic and at least one of whom has Special.
Making any sense at all?
Ferret37 02:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

Ahhh! That makes a lot of sense. But that leadership thing I never realised about at all... perhaps we should have a page dedicated to that in Game Mechanics that explains it.... Our guide never touched on that as far as I saw when going through it!
As for the infobox, that looks really nice and easy to understand. The only thing we might need extra in it is space for formations that will share the same page. (e.g. box and cage) so that users that get redirected to the box page know why.
Andrealinia970 02:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

ahh, this discussion, though you mis-stated one thing ferret, as you elluded to, theres actually 6 categories though, that "special" you mentioned :D Akuthia 02:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You will probably get a box and a cage heading somewhere on the page with their % values as well effect and requirements. Also would "Mystical" be the proper term? what does it say in the guide? Sarmu 03:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The guide just says MYS for everything so it's probably 'Mystic' and not 'Mystical' Andrealinia970 03:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been clearing dead links as I've been going along, so there is no Cage Formation page (a search will automatically direct you to the Box Formation page). Maybe we need to make it clearer to people that they have actually landed on the right page.
Thanks Akuthia, I missed "Special", so there are six requirements. Wherever I said "5" above, read "6".
Ferret37 03:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC).


I've stubbed this page, not sure if we need it page, but it could be usefull to list all formations description in 1 page Sarmu 14:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Redesign Edit

I have been working on a redesign of this page, and it is now ready for wider review. My hope is to have this formations page replace the Combat -> Formations link from the main menu, which currently links to the Formations category instead. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated! Vyx 08:13, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Going to put the new design in now. Vyx 01:24, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

There have been a couple of months since I last visited, but the latest design of the page is wonderful. Well done, guys! --DarkKanda 14:23, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Errors Edit

The formations Warhorse and Destrier declare that formation positions 2 & 3 gain SPD. This is incorrect, they gain on DEF, not SPD. Can someone who knows how to do the layout please correct this? Thank you. - FF12GrandMaster 03:10, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Good formation? Edit

How do you guys determine what formations are good? I am so confused as to what is a "good" formation. The numbers don't add up to be positive. What's the benefit of +STR, INT, and SPD? Does it even show up in the game?Dragoknight9 13:14, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are different things to look for in a formation: Positioning, stat bonuses/penalties and effects. So a good formation is dependent on what you want the union to do. You wouldn't put a union that you want to use for flanking in a SPD focus formation since that'll cause them to act too quickly. If you know what types of attacks the enemies will likely use, then you can plan accordingly, like using M.DEF focus formations against bosses like The Fallen. Then there are formations that you would use to boost abilities, like the Hourglass formation for heavy IA usage. You kinda need to play around to find something that suits your needs. Or you can always just use the "safe" formations like the Vanguard or Batwings.
The STR/INT/SPD bonuses don't show up on the Union Board page, but they are factored in during battle. Zephyr 02:36, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
I tried playing around with the formations, and none of them seem to be made for dodging AOE attacks. I remember trying Vanguard on Mantroskylo like the page suggested for The Ancient War sidequest, and everyone of my characters still got hit every time. Am I just unlucky? I found the formations with the evasion bonus to work better than Vanguard.Dragoknight9 03:49, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
Dodging is also dependent on the unit and their equips. Higher SPD units may have a higher chance of not getting hit by anything. Batwings is one of my go-to formations, along with Blizzard and Unicorn. Vanguard only helps by spreading out your units. Another thing to consider is how big your unions are. I don't usually go for the full 5-unit union, so fewer units get hit. Strategic unit placement! For Vanguard and Batwings, you should really only place units in the 1/4/5 positions as that will ensure ideal spread. Never had a problem with The Ancient War using those formations. Probably just you. Zephyr 04:33, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I need some Formation advice Edit


can you please give me some advice which formation I should use.

I will start a new game plus (this day or tomorrow) with many ingredients, gold, and most of the formations I think.

Please give me a good formation and there units for the beginning group limit. and even for the other ones, till 18.

I will play it again with this wiki & sidequests availability side so that i will do everything and dont forget about something. even hireing the unique leaders as soon as possible.

but please help me with the units and formations. it was to hard for me. I nearly played my first gameplay with the same formation athlum arrow. every group was most times 3x5 and in the end 3x4 + 2x3. most of my groups contains a tank/dd like blocter a fast dd and some mages and healer like pagus...

If you're having difficulties, then probably don't use the Mystic Seal formation too much. It's a great training formation, but the damage reduction can be rough to deal with. The Athlum Arrow is good as a general purpose formation. I'd also use Catapult and Crossbow for mystics.
I'd suggest that you have a dedicated mystic union for Blackout and have a Cachexia unit to swap to the front. Zolean is great for both roles, but you can use another unit if you want to keep them separate. If you have a support union, a SPD+ formation would be ideal so they can run around with a lower chance of getting raidlocked when trying to revive.
Not much more to say since there are a lot of good units you can make use of. Zephyr (talk) 00:01, January 7, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.