Do we even need the FoC?

[Mr Mystery]

Afternoon.

Title is the question. The FoC. Do we really need it?

Originally, back in 3rd Ed, it was introduced to ensure people didn't completely min-max as they did in 2nd Ed. Yeah that didn't really work. Over time, the FoC itself has been largely let be, but the scenarios and scoring unit rules have be tightened up.

And I now question whether the FoC is really needed at all. Consider the average army that you see. Even the cheesiest of cheesey forces include a decent selection of scoring units, regardless of their source (usually Troops of some kind, occasionally other units granted scoring status by a SC or other rule). This because you need to take and hold objectives to actually win the game, unless you plan on an all out 'wipe out my opponent every time' strategy.

Because of this, I'm starting to find the FoC a wee bit restrictive. After all, some people really like their big guns, and will take 3 heavy support choices, and not take Fast Attack. Others the opposite, and indeed everything in between. Yet those slots you don't use, they just sit there, unfilled, whilst the restricted access to those you do favour see certain units crop up time and again, whether through personal preference, or a unit being perceived to be better than it's competitors in the same slot.

And this to me doesn't really match up with what GW want the game to be. Jervis has said on numerous occasions they're not that into artifical restrictions, such as making a given unit 0-1 per army (SC excluded for obvious reasons!).

So what if we played without the FoC completely? I feel the design of the missions, and the fact that you select your army, then determine the mission being played is self enforcing restriction enough when coupled with the traditional points system.

But what do you reckon? And yes, sod it, I'm going to make this a poll!

[Wolfshade]

Yes.

People had the flexibility of including troops in their armies previously (or what we now recognise as troops) but did not do so because they were not as cost effective as elites or HQs.

I still face armies that regularly that include 2 minmum sized troops of the cheapest variety open to the army and their job is to skulk at the back of the field and claim the home objectives, while the rest of the army isnt about the mission, it is about tabling the opponent, or removing their troops so that they can only try and contest.

I think in terms of balance their needs to be a reason to take tactical squads over terminators. After all, a 5 man squad of "hammernators" (I hate that term) is highly resilent, more so than it's equivalent of Tactical Marines or Scouts.

I think the whole point of the FoC is that it is difficult and forces challenges otherwise you would have people that just field as many of X (where X is in their opinion the best/most cost effective option in the respective codex) as they can.

Can you imagine an army of Tau facing against an army of BA Vanguard Vets? Each unit arriving by an heroic intervention? The advantage of shooting by Tau is completely undone as each unit is then just locked in combat.

[Darren Richardson]

Yes we need the chart, but it could be improved upon....

How I see it players who don't like certain types of troop choice such as fast attack,heavy etc, they are limited in what they can take so many will be forced to take a second FoC detachment to make up the numbers (this really applies to Treadheads strongly I notice).

I would like to see an option where you can trade in two unused FoC slots for one slot in a different catagory, for example say I want a fast moving army geared up with fast attack options and I don't want to use heavy slow units, I decided to trade in two heavy support slots to take another fast attack, I then trade the remaining heavy slot and one elite to take another fast attack slot.

as a result I would then have 5 fast attacks plus my HQ and Troops, giving me a fast moving rapid response force....

I really think such an option can and would work.

[gwensdad]

I voted "Flexible" just because I like the idea of characters "unlocking" the ability to make something that's normally in FOC slot X into slot Y.

[Daredevil]

I could actually live with a more restrictive FOC. Not an option in your poll, Observer bias?

Something more akin to Fantasy where you must spend x% on Troops.

I play in a meta wherein people seem to take minimal squads of troops to scrape by. In a mission with more than two objectives I'm at an advantage from the start.

It's just my opinion of course.

[ElectricPaladin]

I agree that the FOC could be more interesting and that rules to vary it in nifty ways could be more common, but I don't think it's something the game could survive without. Warhammer is intended to be a command-and-control game, not just nasty elites with tons of dice slaughtering each other. Unless 40k leaves all seriousness behind and decides to become a bloody shoot-em-up and nothing more, the FOC is going to be an important part of the game.

[Tyrendian]

I agree that the FOC could be more interesting and that rules to vary it in nifty ways could be more common, but I don't think it's something the game could survive without. Warhammer is intended to be a command-and-control game, not just nasty elites with tons of dice slaughtering each other. Unless 40k leaves all seriousness behind and decides to become a bloody shoot-em-up and nothing more, the FOC is going to be an important part of the game.

then again, Warmahordes does just fine without one... due to the very different structure of the armies themselves, to be sure, but still...
removing the FOC would need a major overhaul of the entire ruleset, and should that happen there´s no way to tell how well it´ll all work out just now... so my vote goes to "it´s fine as it is" (for the current ruleset)

[ElectricPaladin]

then again, Warmahordes does just fine without one... due to the very different structure of the armies themselves, to be sure, but still...

WarmaHordes is also a very different game that plays on a totally different scale. I don't think that the two are comparable.

[Gleipnir]

Voted more flexible in the sense that I would love to see more missions offered that use different FOC options, similar to Siege Missions, Planetstrike, City of Death, Escalation offerings. Maybe change the table up for more Fast Attack for a larger 8' x 4' play area board, More Heavy Support on a board with less terrain saturation etc.. The stock missions would really need to justify the changes to FOC though or as Wolfshade said it just becomes about tabling your opponent using minimum scoring options required.

[Mr.Pickelz]

I vote Flexible, Due to how the Ork Codex is set up, with Wazzdakka and Zhadsnark making Bikerz troops, and Warboss' making Nobz troops, Big meks with their Deff Dreads, etc...Also it's a good note that the Ork codex is pretty balanced, it's showing its age, but overall the book has good units in all categories, even if there are options that are ignored (Flash Gitz) the entire FOC can be utilized whether for fluff or competitive play. If newer books could manage this then I think a flexible FOC (characters unlocking things) would be the way to go.

[Mr Mystery]

Apologies for the lack of 'tighter' option.

My bad.

Not sure if I can add to the poll now, but will give it a bash :)

[phreakachu]

Flexible.
in the point that i would like to be able to shuffle my elites, fast attack and heavy. i have more elites and heavies than fast for my CSM army, not that i use all of them on a consistant basis, but i would like the option, as per the rules, to trade my fast slots for my Elites, an extra heavy.

more than a FOC shift tho, i believe GW needs to simply print in the mission descriptions something akin to 'victory is determined by whoever controls the most objectives' and 'objectives may never be placed in a deployment zone'... i think it would be a better solution than a FoC shift: the GeeDub-preferred consumers would still buy all the expensive shiney toys the company would like us to, while the gamers wouldnt be screwed by the 'munchkins with toys' players.

Or, perhaps, that the warlord is required to make a LD check when the final Scoring unit has been killed: failure means he orders a 'Tactical retreat': all units must move twords the board edge ASAP.. to really drive the 'i cant win because my guys cant win' idea, only your Warlord gets to make this check: if hes not on the table, the army automatically fails this.

in my experience, however, munchkins tend to exit the game quickly. i have a tendancy to point out that their army cant 'win' when their 10 scouts have been excessively banished from the table through 'less than awesome' firepower, or that even though i only have a single Space Marine left on the table, victory is mine because i have an objective, whereas they do not. they get kinda butthurt, and move on to games like Warmahordes or Heroclix. ;D

[Gotthammer]

Apologies for the lack of 'tighter' option.

http://static1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/4636603+_534dc8f8bf802b026faf67fb40d3439e.gif


Personally speaking I think a good combination of tightness and flexibility is best...


As for the FOC, being able to trade slots had the problem when Marines could do it a couple of 'dexes ago that you'd end up with spammed devastators so if it were to happen it'd need to be done with a pretty heavy overhaul of the books else it'd end up with serious balance issues - for instance being able to trade in elites and FA in a Wolf army to have nothing but Long Fangs and Grey Hunters would be one extreme. Or the Iron Warrior artillery lines of yore. Not necessarily bad, but would need a lot of work with the game as is (probably why it's not been touched much).

[Daredevil]

On reflection, and to add to my comment from before I'd love to play some games with asymmetric force org charts. No fast attack for 'attackers' no Heavy Support for 'defenders'. Different mission objectives for either side, that kind of thing.

My trouble seems to be getting opponents who will play me in my crazy schemes!

[DWest]

I think the best fix would be to limit the non-Troop slots based on number of Troops; e.g. you're limited to T-1 in each other slot, where T is your Troops. So if you want to put in 3 elites or heavy or whatever, you'd need 4 troops units. I have two reasons for this, the first being it doesn't feel like GW acknowledges extremes in their points costs. A Riptide, or Heldrake, or what-have-you is reasonably priced, as long as you have *1* of them. Once you plop down 3-of, the points cost doesn't reflect the capability any longer. Admittedly, this wouldn't fix armies where the Troops themselves are the problem, White Scars bikes for example, but it would be a start.
Second, with all the fluff-based and "forge the narrative" focus in 6th, it would seem to make more sense from a fluff perspective; you think the Commissar is really going to sign off on deploying a full artillery company of 9 Basilisks to support 2 squads of infantry?

[Daredevil]

I think the best fix would be to limit the non-Troop slots based on number of Troops; e.g. you're limited to T-1 in each other slot, where T is your Troops. So if you want to put in 3 elites or heavy or whatever, you'd need 4 troops units. I have two reasons for this, the first being it doesn't feel like GW acknowledges extremes in their points costs. A Riptide, or Heldrake, or what-have-you is reasonably priced, as long as you have *1* of them. Once you plop down 3-of, the points cost doesn't reflect the capability any longer. Admittedly, this wouldn't fix armies where the Troops themselves are the problem, White Scars bikes for example, but it would be a start.
Second, with all the fluff-based and "forge the narrative" focus in 6th, it would seem to make more sense from a fluff perspective; you think the Commissar is really going to sign off on deploying a full artillery company of 9 Basilisks to support 2 squads of infantry?


I really agree with the Troops pre-requisite idea.

The second part about the artillery company though...

I've always taken the typical game of 40k as being a snapshot of a wider battlefield. It's perfectly feasible that the artillery pieces would be at the rear of the main battlelines away from the FLOT. Stands to reason you should leave a couple of squads to guard them.

Do you catch my drift or am I being unclear?

[John Bower]

I'd like to see more limits on units. Force people to use 'fluffy' armies rather than this 'maxed out madness' that we see currently. Maybe use percentages as WFB apparently does? Or something a bit tighter perhaps, limiting your points on all but troops within certain values, perhaps 200 points of Heavy/FA/Elite/HQ per 1500

[DWest]

I see what you're saying, but I was operating under the idea that the IG was intentionally moving forward. That could make an interesting twist on "Big Guns Never Tire" though-- make it a focused annihilation game perhaps, where the artillery pieces are the objective?

[Denzark]

I don't like the whole 'unlocking' thing. I would go back to percentages at the drop of a hat.

[This Dave]

I think the best fix would be to limit the non-Troop slots based on number of Troops; e.g. you're limited to T-1 in each other slot, where T is your Troops. So if you want to put in 3 elites or heavy or whatever, you'd need 4 troops units. I have two reasons for this, the first being it doesn't feel like GW acknowledges extremes in their points costs. A Riptide, or Heldrake, or what-have-you is reasonably priced, as long as you have *1* of them. Once you plop down 3-of, the points cost doesn't reflect the capability any longer. Admittedly, this wouldn't fix armies where the Troops themselves are the problem, White Scars bikes for example, but it would be a start.
Second, with all the fluff-based and "forge the narrative" focus in 6th, it would seem to make more sense from a fluff perspective; you think the Commissar is really going to sign off on deploying a full artillery company of 9 Basilisks to support 2 squads of infantry?

At that point the infantry is there to support and provide security for the artillery instead of the other way around.

[DWest]

At that point the infantry is there to support and provide security for the artillery instead of the other way around.
The point is though, the mission being played is one where the infantry is being sent forward to secure objectives. In a mission like that, it doesn't make sense to have more pieces of artillery than infantry squads.

[This Dave]

The point is though, the mission being played is one where the infantry is being sent forward to secure objectives. In a mission like that, it doesn't make sense to have more pieces of artillery than infantry squads.

Massed artillery fire almost always makes the advance easier. Especially if you don't have overwhelming manpower.

If the objective is really important I can see an artillery company being tasked to support a single platoon.

[Daredevil]

Massed artillery fire almost always makes the advance easier.

I see you graduated from the WWI School of Generalship. ;)

[Wolfshade]

On reflection, and to add to my comment from before I'd love to play some games with asymmetric force org charts. No fast attack for 'attackers' no Heavy Support for 'defenders'. Different mission objectives for either side, that kind of thing.

My trouble seems to be getting opponents who will play me in my crazy schemes!

Look at Planet Strike...

[This Dave]

I see you graduated from the WWI School of Generalship. ;)

Hey, it's the Imperial Guard. There's a reason they say "big guns never tire." Keep your smell of napalm in the morning, give me a nice rolling box barrage any day. :)

[Anggul]

It's fine as it is. By having it there we have forces as they would be in the story, not just loads of the same thing. You shouldn't be able to take loads of the same elite/heavy support thing because the army wouldn't have that many of that thing compared to troops. That's why they're called 'Elites' and 'Heavy Support'. It's right that the bulk of the army should be 'Troops'. I think some (not all) Elites should be able to take objectives, as they're often just slightly better equipped versions of the Troops for more points and it makes no sense for them not to be able to but other than that I think it's just fine.

[Daredevil]

Angular might be on to something there. So let's ask:

Is there a codex that would be severely harmed by having a 0-1 limit on EVERYTHING that is not a 'troop' choice?

This would fit the idea of a mixed Battlegroup all working together towards 1 objective....

[GrauGeist]

The FOC is fine, recognizing that it's basically a sales tool to get people to buy stuff to check off the boxes.

If it were up to me, I'd say the FOC should be more restrictive, especially with Allies, Fortifications, and Superheavies on the prowl.

Imagine if Allies were such that they took FOC slots, and Superheavies took 2 Heavy slots, and Fortifications cost a Troops slots. There would be tradeoffs, as you'd be forced to decide taking Allied Heavy + Superheavy vs 3 Heavies of your own.

But it's not, so it doesn't matter. Hence the ability to load up on extra Heavies via Allies & Lords of War.

[GrauGeist]

Is there a codex that would be severely harmed by having a 0-1 limit on EVERYTHING that is not a 'troop' choice?

Too narrow. Limit Necrons to 0-1 of each Troops, just like everyone else.

[GrauGeist]

it doesn't make sense to have more pieces of artillery than infantry squads.

My Imperial Guard Armor begs to differ.

Being able to put at least a half-dozen S8+ Large Ordnance down each turn makes life much better for my Guardsmen.

[Gleipnir]

Going back to unit based restrictions while it deters spam also makes armies less flexible in general which I'd say I dislike, I prefer more options to less.

Better to just offer more mission options with different setup and FOC options, missions for Armored Columns, Deep Strike only forces, Swamps where tracked vehicles can't enter and all non-flyers receive Stealth + Shrouded vs flyers etc...

[Arkhan Land]

I selected the "Other" category, Ide like to a see a loosened FoC for normal 40k play maybe something like the ability to 1 extra unit in any slot of your choosing, unit is non-scoring, has to be in reserves blah blah blah, I think one of the first few comments mentioned trading one slot for another. somethn like that, allow people to play/spam on their strengths, whatever
altogether though I think normal 40k play is fine, Apocalypse throws **** like this to the wind the only frontier is...

Maybe a new FoC for competetive play... something to slim down certain categories with three choices to two, make a certain higher number of troops, limitations on percentages of armies invested in Vehicles/MCs/Flyers.
Think of it like equipment for bike racing and bikes, a lot of different ways to engineer it but ultimately it has to conform to certain size and weight restrictions.

[Dave Mcturk]

as a 'retired' serious wargamer ... i find 40k very refreshing ... even if the green wombles keep trying to mess it up..

most 'serious' wargames have 'foc' that relate to a particular army/period/theatre... gw seemed to attempt this in some 'codex' - as a pp has mentioned... but in previous iterations they actually did it better.... the BRB foc is almost pointless .... but its here to stay for 'competition'

we like to house rule certain games by limiting choices to certain catagories... but that is for friendly games ...

'Bikes ONLY' ... marines v orcz is great FUN !:D

[Blackcloud6]

I like the FoC as it is. An Allied detachment can give you some flexibility and each army has flexibility within each force type in the Codex. I've never really liked games where you "purchase" units; real commanders use the forces on hand and reinforced by higher HQ. They don't get to pick and choose. WH40K is the first games system where I actually like point based purchasing because of the FoC, the forces in the players' codex and, importantly the order in which they are chosen. it is this last part that I like because you really don't know what the enemy is bring and you have to assess what he might have and what you need form your army to do the job while countering the enemy. The FoC gives you a rudimentary structure, without it, building your army would be a crap shoot.

[Veteran Sergeant]

I'm really of a mixed feeling on this.

I think the FOC is important. The reason the Troops are Troops is because they are... the troops. They are the most common types of unit in any given faction's greater military power. A Space Marine Chapter has 44 Tactical Squads, but only 10 Veteran Squads. Thus it goes without saying that the Tactical Squad should be far more common on the battlefield.

I come from two schools of wargaming. And I kinda like the way the "serious" games try to mold force selections to reflect the "reality" of the background. Though I also understand where there isn't a market for that with everyone, so I can appreciate 40K's more loosey goosey approach. It explains the popularity of Flames of War and the newer Bolt Action games for the WW2 segment. The gamier points selection model lets people play the models they want, rather than the models they (theoretically) should.

I think 40K's FOC is kinda wonky. I think its restriction of scoring to only troops selections even wonkier, lol. I mean, I get wanting to push players into a "fluffier" list than was commonly built in 2nd Edition, but if the players pay for the units, they should all count.

[John Bower]

as a 'retired' serious wargamer ... i find 40k very refreshing ... even if the green wombles keep trying to mess it up..

most 'serious' wargames have 'foc' that relate to a particular army/period/theatre... gw seemed to attempt this in some 'codex' - as a pp has mentioned... but in previous iterations they actually did it better.... the BRB foc is almost pointless .... but its here to stay for 'competition'

we like to house rule certain games by limiting choices to certain catagories... but that is for friendly games ...

'Bikes ONLY' ... marines v orcz is great FUN !:D

I've said before, I kind of house rule my own limits. No Lords of War - only allowed in Apoc. Only 1 of any but Troops HQ until such time you have buildings to support them. No flyers unless you own a Spaceport for them to land at. No more than 1 Heavy unless you have a factory to build them, and so on. It really makes tactics important in the early parts of the campaign, but less so once the forces hit the allowed slots and can field 3k+ armies

[Charistoph]

There are many ways this can be addressed. As it is now, GW's rules now fit the FOC in to the mission you are selecting. This isn't anything new, either. Planetstrike, Kill Team, Border Patrol, and Battle Missions all have scenarios where the FOC is vastly different to the Eternal War missions presented as the 'standard' in the BRB.

What I would like to see is the ability for both sides to have different missions on the table, and what missions you have access to, or to have a higher chance of getting, is based on the FOC you build to.

For example:
The Generalist FOC contains 1-2 HQ, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 FA, Elites, HS, and 1 small Fortification, with an optional Allied of 1HQ, 1-2 Troops, and 0-1 Elite, FA, or HS based on numer of Allied Troops. This FOC would have not weighting in Missions

The Aggressor FOC contains 1-3 HQ, 2-6 Troops, 0-4 Elites, 0-1 FA, 0-2 HS, no Fortification, with optional Allied as 1 HQ, 1-2 Troops, 0-# of Allied Troops, 0 FA, 0-1 HS. This FOC would lend weight to having Purge and Relic, while not having Scouring or Big Guns as an option.

The Scout FOC would be 1-2 HQ, 2-6 Troops, 0-2 Elites, 0-4 FA, 0-1 HS, no Fortification, and Allied with 1 HQ, 1-2 Troops, 0-# of Allied Troops FA, 0-1 Elite, and 0 HS. This FOC would replace Purge with Relic and Big Guns with Scouring.

The Defender FOC would be 1-2 HQ, 2-8 Troops, 0-2 Elites, 0-1 FA, and 0-4 HS, a small or large Fortification, and Allies with 1 HQ, 1-2 Troops, 0-# HS of Allied Troop, 0-1 Elite, and 0 FA. This FOC would replace Scouring with Big Guns and Relic with Crusade.

For any FOC, 0-1 Lord of War with the purchase of two Primary Detachments. All Elite, FA, and HS unit choices may only be selected more than twice a Detachment when four Troop Choices are purchased for that Same Detachment.

[GrauGeist]

the BRB foc is almost pointless .... but its here to stay for 'competition'

The BBB FOC is actually a FU to competition, because competition doesn't want players to bring the coolest toys to the table, whereas GW really wants to sell you lots of them.

[Lexington]

Better to just offer more mission options with different setup and FOC options, missions for Armored Columns, Deep Strike only forces, Swamps where tracked vehicles can't enter and all non-flyers receive Stealth + Shrouded vs flyers etc...
Someone hire this person immediately.

[Mr Mystery]

I'd be up for that :)

Any scenario or amendment which increases variety is good for me

[DarkLink]

The BBB FOC is actually a FU to competition, because competition doesn't want players to bring the coolest toys to the table, whereas GW really wants to sell you lots of them.

They would sell soooo many riptides if they dropped the FOC.

[goldenS]

I think if they made it more flexible, then it would encourage more players to field more "realistic" armies, not all Space Marine Battle Companies, for example, will remain at 100 Marines after each conflict, especially on the tabletop!!!!!

[Lucidum]

The game as a whole would be much more fun and much less restrictive without the FoC. It would allow players to make fully themed armies, and would allow for tactics to be developed based on units you WANT to use over those you HAVE to use. It’d balance itself out, too. If somebody wanted to run an army made purely out of say…Chaos Obliterators, they’d have a small, elite force, but one which would suffer for every casualty the enemy managed to inflict. I’m not saying I’d run this army, but i’m saying that so called “overpowered” forces that could come about by doing away with the FoC could be balanced out by players using a more balanced force to overcome them.

[Charistoph]

Better to just offer more mission options with different setup and FOC options, missions for Armored Columns, Deep Strike only forces, Swamps where tracked vehicles can't enter and all non-flyers receive Stealth + Shrouded vs flyers etc...

Someone hire this person immediately.

I'd be up for that :)

Any scenario or amendment which increases variety is good for me

Yeah, and maybe they could put them in a book collection to make them easy to find. And also add them in to Supplements and Data Slates, too, so players can have scenarios for the new toys!

Oh, wait, they actually do have and do stuff like that...

The real challenge is getting people to WANT to play them. There is an odd mental thing in some where if it's not in the rulebook, it's not a proper mission, and unplayable. So, mission books get used for local tournaments at launch, and are rarely seen outside of preset games.

[John Bower]

Yeah, and maybe they could put them in a book collection to make them easy to find. And also add them in to Supplements and Data Slates, too, so players can have scenarios for the new toys!

Oh, wait, they actually do have and do stuff like that...

The real challenge is getting people to WANT to play them. There is an odd mental thing in some where if it's not in the rulebook, it's not a proper mission, and unplayable. So, mission books get used for local tournaments at launch, and are rarely seen outside of preset games.
Which is kind of sad really, GW have come up with some cracking missions, I created a generator that uses all the missions I have available to me. Something like 70+ right now

[Ezaviel]

I voted that the FOC is fine as it is. A bunch of chracters/HQs have an effect on it already (Master of the Forge, Belial, Chaos Lords with Marks, etc etc), so it is pretty flexible in many armies.

If there was no FOC, armies would get even more ridiculous than they already are. I don't want to face an army with unlimited slots for Riptides, or Heldrakes...

[deinol]

I think if they made it more flexible, then it would encourage more players to field more "realistic" armies, not all Space Marine Battle Companies, for example, will remain at 100 Marines after each conflict, especially on the tabletop!!!!!

I'm not really certain how that matters. You already have the ability to run squads with 5-10 men in it. If you have 7 guys in a squad, that means 3 bit the dust earlier.

I've been slowly working on making my full marine company. If it's a smaller battle, I'm likely to use a chaplain for command, since the captain or chapter master doesn't show up to ever skirmish in the battle line. I also like the way the FW campaign systems have ways to injure characters and limit how often they get played per phase.

[telegramsam70]

I love this idea.

[FlangeNabber]

Just thought of an interesting but slightly more balanced version of the 2 for 1 swapping of slots.

Try this - For every troop choice selected over the required 2 you can exchange 2 elite, fast or heavy slots for 1 additional slot in either of those 3 categories.
So if you took 5 troops and swapped out all elite and fast slots you could field 6 heavy choices for example

I think that reduces the possible abuse you could get with the straight 2 for one swapping while still adding a little flair to the existing force org chart?

[Baneblade]

WFB has a much better system. One character is required for a general, 25% min for core, 50% max for special and 25% max for rares, heroes and lord. In addition for special there is a cap of 3 duplicates of each unit, and 2 for rare choices. In addition there is minimum of 3 units.

This type of system would work well for 40k. Have your min 1 HQ and 25% troops. Then you could have a 50% cap for FA, Heavy, and elites. Put a duplicate limit for units of 2 or 3. That way there will not spamming Riptides or whatever, but still gives the flexibility for someone to go heavy support heavy, or whatever theme fits their style of play. It also eliminates people from finding the cheapest troop choice and running 2 bare min squads.

[pchappel]

With Allies, Dataslates, etc. it should actually BE enforced... Right now, it is not impossible to field 5 Heavies like the Tau Riptides... So, it should either be equally enforced for all or abandoned..

[BrotherAlpharius]

I remember 2nd edition and whilst the FOC was a shock when it was introduced I wouldn't be without it. Allies allow too much abuse of it as it is.

In an older version of the CSM Codex certain legions had tweaks so that for example Iron Warriors got an extra Heavy Support slot at the expense of a Fast Attack slot whilst Night Lords had the reverse. I think provided you kept the 2 Troops minimum I would be open to the idea of being able two trade two unused slots for a single extra slot in another category. This would be a little more flexible for theme lists without opening the door to anything too outrageous.

[Dave Mcturk]

any TO. can impose rules for their own competitions. but the law of unintended consequences normally arises.

we sometimes play games 'for fun' { more giggle than normal anyway}... by playing without some slots .. [ie no heavy support]
or with just one slot or troop type, the game is very versatile...

the only unit we have out and out banned is ORC LOOTAZ !

we are currently running a series of games where players can only have TWO of any unit... it stops lots of spamming... obviously... and doesnt seem to have 'spoiled' the game... but is possibly too restrictive for 'open tournaments'

[midas]

one word: obsolte
if things were better ballanced ponits/ability wise, it might still work. but currently with so many options to circumvent FOC, it is more a hindrance, than anything else.

[DarkLink]

It just occurred to me that the FOC is fairly easily improvable. Instead of the current fixed chart, create a scaling chart. Start with 1HQ, 1 Elite, 2 Troops, 1 FA, 1 HS. For every X number of points, add a certain number of slots for players to use. So at, say, 1000pts, you're stuck with that limited list, but at 2000, you can fit in a lot more stuff. Don't know what that scaling would be right now, but it strikes me that you could curb a lot of nastier lists doing this.

[Wolfshade]

It just occurred to me that the FOC is fairly easily improvable. Instead of the current fixed chart, create a scaling chart. Start with 1HQ, 1 Elite, 2 Troops, 1 FA, 1 HS. For every X number of points, add a certain number of slots for players to use. So at, say, 1000pts, you're stuck with that limited list, but at 2000, you can fit in a lot more stuff. Don't know what that scaling would be right now, but it strikes me that you could curb a lot of nastier lists doing this.

This is a proxy for %ages in effect.

[LCS]

People are already cheesing out as hard as they can with 5 Riptides and as many FMC as they can cram into their lists, do we really want more?

[Flllyi]

I think the FOC is a way to somewhat balance the game... but with troops being only scoring units, It is not as necessary as it was in the past.

[Dave Mcturk]

most tournament scenarios are going the 'combined' route, so 1/3 games hs are scoring and vp and 1/3 fa are scoring and vp

we play adepticon scenarios pretty exclusively and it definitely 'improves' the balance...

players have two routes for extra balance, modify the armies [codex manipulation or comp] or modify the scenarios ... not to give the green wombles to much hammer but external TO have 'rescued' the pretty poor brb scenarios by combining them in pairs, if youve not tried it ... then i can highly recommend it ...

[biffster666]

How soon we forget?

or

Be careful what you wish for?

Play on players!

[The Sovereign]

I like the FOC as it is, to be honest. I like a few named characters here and there that can unlock elites as troops and so on, like Farsight and crisis suits or Pedro Kantor and sternguard. A fluffy list should consist of a lot of pawns backed up by a few heavy hitters, and it makes the named characters who can alter FOC seem more special.

[Lord Krungharr]

I didn't much care for percentages, as certain Codices' min units will screw with that too much. If the rumors about bonuses for a Forged (FOC?) army vs an 'Unbound' army are true, and we have all whacky missions that change all the time, and for some reason they do not have the Wipe Out rule in effect, then people with 7 Riptides (or however many fit) may not actually be able to win games, despite killing almost everything on the board. Too much uncertainty about the new edition's total ruleset to know what worms will spill from the can yet.

[Mr Mystery]

BEHOLD THE PROPHECY OF MYSTIC MR MYSTERY!!!

And no, I don't do Lottery numbers.

[biffster666]

It's MMM-MMM good ;-p

I would like to see GW keep the 1HQ 2Troops minimum and just make all infantry scoring units with the exception of HQ's since there is a Warlord trait. Vehicles/MC's would only be scoring units because of the scenario, a special character, etc. They could modify special characters like Pedro that already turn specific infantry units into scoring units by turning them into troops instead.