FOC - Good or Bad?

[Atrotos]

Latest article on Rules Manufactorum (http://rulesmanufactorum.blogspot.com). I've pasted here to be polite, please give me your opinions on the topic (and the writing).

In 4th edition Warhammer 40,000 it wasn't uncommon to find an army consisting of two bare minimum Troop selections and maxed-out Elites and Heavy Support slots. Today we usually see a healthy amount of Troop selections due to the fact that 5th edition is objective-centric and many would seem to agree that the issue of negligible FOC restrictions has been successfully overcome. However another question arises now that Troops ares so critical to the game. Namely "why does Brother Casor hold an objective where the venerable Brother Autolochus can not?"

In 4th edition Troops were meant to represent the bulk of any army. Thus it made sense that a conventional Space Marine Chapter relied on Tactical squads to secure gained territory whereas the Deathwing, being of a different Organization, relied on its Terminators to do the heavy lifting.

This mentality worked well in 4th ed. but was mercilessly circumvented to the point of near irrelevance. Now 5th ed. has forced the gamer's hand, pushing Troops choices as a necessary inclusion not for FOC's sake but for the sake of Capture and Control. But the Force Organization Chart was never meant to be used this way. There is no clear reason as to why an Imperial Guard army can't rely on Storm Troopers to stick around when the Inquisition can. In a skirmish level conflict is there any logic to assigning occupation roles to certain squads and not to others?

One might argue that the roles of certain units is widely different. The Vanguard are linebreakers incapable of protracted engagements ergo they cannot babysit an objective for a long period of time. In reality, however the conflicts we act out on the tabletop last no more than a few minutes; a few rounds fired, 50 meters or so of movement, and a seconds-long close quarters fight or two. Any real objective taking is made after the events featured in the game take place.

It's obvious that the designers at GW Headquarters took this route to establish a kind of balance in terms of unit variety and power. 'Scoring' is a mechanism meant to persuade players to build more heterogeneous forces and not simply max out on powerful units. In this GW has been largely successful, but at what price?

Setting HQ choices aside, Troops currently represent your only options for units that you can build an entire army out of while still being both FOC-legal and competitive in terms of your ability to score. If you wish to build an army with a theme (that is, with the representation of a particular homogeneous force in mind) you must select a Troops choice to do it with. If it is not a Troops choice you may not build a themed force from it. No Legion of the Damned host, no Obliterator Cult, no IG Cavalry force, no abhuman muster, no Gargoyle swarm, No Harlequin Dance Crew etc.

So many possible themes are rendered impossible by the current FOC. Moreover, units that might have seen action if they were Troop-equivalent (IG Storm Troopers, Grey Knight Teleporter Squad, Ogryn) are never taken due to the opportunity cost in terms of better, 'scoring' choices. We, the players are denied endless variety at the whim of GW's codex designers. Secondary to this problem, but still significant, is the issue that not all Troops options have the same tactical capability and flexibility. Nob Bikers are far superior to Tau Fire Warriors the former being able to fulfill a combat role effectively whilst the latter is mostly a burden on the force, a liability that must be protected in order to capture objectives.

The solution to this issue is not immediately obvious. If you scrap the FOC altogether what will happen? Well you'd likely see ever Space Marine army filled to the brim with Thunder Hammer/Storm Shield Terminators and little else. Leman Russ variants would choke the tabletop to be countered by a herd of Deamon Princes. Waves of Seer Council members would clash with a veritable fleet of Land Raiders. Therefore, some moderation is clearly needed because no all units are costed with unlimited access in mind.

I would suggest making an upgrade or HQ character or entry for each Elite and Heavy Support slot that would make each entry a Troops choice. This might differ from the above situation in that the player may trade FOC entries based on his or her selections. I imagine an Imperial Guard player selecting a Command Tank thus making Leman Russes a Troops choice. This however, would mean that a Company Command Squad became unavailable. Likewise a Space Marine player wishing to field Terminators as Troops might only be able to do so by "buying" the option thus adding a premium to his army's cost.

Just as some armies would be restricted others might be encouraged by points-breaks such as can be found in Warmachine themed force cards. One example might be "If more than 3 Ogryn quads are taken the cost is reduced to XX pts per model."

Such a system would, no doubt, lead to a different kind of power gaming. This, however, would be the result of poor points attribution to begin with. Thus you would see few Chaos Spawn themed armies but not because of the removed FOC. Rather this would be the product of poor unit entry design.

Alternatively you might reassess the idea of 'Scoring' as a concept. By removing it completely (allowing all units to score), removing the FOC, and re-balancing points costs with a view to discounting themed armies you might end up with more canon-realistic forces. These forces would be more unique and more satisfying to collect for their uniqueness.

I believe a radical reinvention of the FOC could see this hobby take a turn for the better. With a greater variety of options for army builders strategies are sure to diversify and the game could gain greater depth overnight. In addition so much more of the fluff will see the tabletop as players will be free to express their ideas through their armies with greater precision.

What do you guys think?

[Melissia]

I still see a good deal of armies, especially Space Marine armies, with little to no troops choices aside from the first two.

[born_of_iron]

Personally I think the only thing that should be mandatory is some kind of hq, even if its just a veteran sergeant or equivalent. That way people could create any army they wanted and make the game more about having fun

[Melissia]

Then houserule it that way... but I like the idea of troops capturing points...

And if you want to make it so all infantry can capture points, you're going to have to do some dramatic repricing, because fifth edition codices are balanced for the current setup.

[DarkLink]

The idea that only troops can score is silly, I think. Even if you claim that their numbers are required after the battle, that presumes that the surviving troops elsewhere on the board can't walk over and hold it.

And for that matter, why don't we play until one army is completely dead or fleeing?

Ultimately, it just comes down to as buff to make people take troops, because troops simply weren't nearly as good as elites.

Which isn't a bad thing, though it really hurts my Grey Knights. I just personally think they should have buffed normal units compared to elite units. If, for example, tactical Marines were cheaper than they currently are, while all the elite Marine stuff stayed the same price, then we'd've see more people take lots of troops as cheap bodies and such. If they made every armies troops as good as cult CSMs, or Grey Hunters, that'd be awesome.

[Melissia]

The problem with making MArines cheaper is that you'd want to also make Guardsmen, Sisters, and etc cheaper along with Marines. And Guardsmen are already dirt cheap...

[Lerra]

The FoC feels too restrictive at 1850 and higher (at least for some armies). I've got two lists where I basically run out of FoC slots before I get to 2000 points (there are lots of small, cheap squads, and everything is full except one HQ slot). I can't scale those lists up to 'ard Boyz without changing the whole idea behind the army.

Limiting an army to 6 troops feels kind of odd, too. If you want to take massive amounts of underlings, I don't see any major problem with that.

[Paul]

I try to make an armored company, and with the new Guard codex, it is easier. But still not a true armored company.
1) Squadrons? Are they communicating with hand signals? Flags? What?
2) Infantry support? Armored companies are allocated this through attaching platoons, they don't have to natively have it...except through the FOC.
3) Company Command Squad? Commissar? Psyker? Why would an armored company be commanded by a 5-man strong random foot squad when the tanks apparently have to use hand-signals anyways? Psyker? Lord Commissar in a PC?

The Forgeworld Armored Battlegroup is the best armored list out there for my theme list. But it's hard to convince people to play it... :/

[Atrotos]

Having given it some thought I think codex updates with alternate FOC's is the best way. Something that's online and in White Dwarf that will hand people a minimum of official rules to play their army differently. It might be a special character or HQ entry or it may just say "If Dominion squads are taken as Troops the player must make the following changes to the FOC..."

[UltramarineFan]

Reading that, I have to admit that I wasn't convinced to start with but the alternatives you suggest seem like quiet good ideas. Problem is that if they did redisgn FOC in a major way they could get it attrociously wrong and I just can't say I have that much trust in GW rules writers. And the reason they have to limit troops choices is because of armeis like orks, where you get to a point where they just have to stop taking boyz.

[Melissia]

I'd rather balance out dominions by reducing the costs of their special weapons (to normal) and giving them the Scouts special rule (Which also applies to any vehicle they join)...

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
IMO, 40ks FOC is far to restrictive and counter intuitive , compared to other forms of army composition.

I much prefer the WHFB method that doesnt describe what the units are supposed to do on the table top.
AND gives a reasonalbe amount of scalability.

If we change the title of 40k units slots, to HQ,Common , Specialised,Restricted.(Similar to how Andy Chamers did with the ork Klan update.)

Then an armies theme can fit without clashing on the type of unit, and its position on the FOC.
(Assault marines as troop chioces instead of fast attack, scout being elite chioces, etc.)

A minimum of 1 HQ unit and a maximum of 1 restricted unit for every 1000pts.
A minimum of 2 common units and a maximum of 1 specialised unit for every 500pts.
Two normal unit chioces can be replaced by a Special Named unit/character.

A table of pv-no of units available could be done,(similar to WHFBs.)

Depending on army type and theme , the units would be classified differntly,(Assault marines are specialised in normal lists , but common chioces for BA, etc.)

This allows themed armies without 'counterintuitive ' slot names, and scalability over wider range of game sizes.
40k FOC only works well at 1500 to 200 PV.

TTFN

[Fellend]

I try to make an armored company, and with the new Guard codex, it is easier. But still not a true armored company.
1) Squadrons? Are they communicating with hand signals? Flags? What?
2) Infantry support? Armored companies are allocated this through attaching platoons, they don't have to natively have it...except through the FOC.
3) Company Command Squad? Commissar? Psyker? Why would an armored company be commanded by a 5-man strong random foot squad when the tanks apparently have to use hand-signals anyways? Psyker? Lord Commissar in a PC?

The Forgeworld Armored Battlegroup is the best armored list out there for my theme list. But it's hard to convince people to play it... :/

Make your own HQ, Make a command chimera. give it the have the entire company command stick out of it somewhere. with the obvious exception of it having to always stick together it can easily count as a squad. Or buy the the command squad with the phone from Forgeworld. that seems quite realistic. Having been in a command squad my entire military service I can tell you that all they do is sit back behind the lines and drink coffee anyway.

[david5th]

Wecould just go back to the 2nd ed ruling of points percentages for army composition. If you want it that units other than troops can hold objectives, i think it's fine aslong as your oppenent agrees.

[Zoa]

I think that each codex should contain its own Force Org chart that makes sense for the force contained within that codex. It would make it a lot easier for GW to balance and restrict combos they find overpowered in one army without ramifications on others.

Similarly I think GW should ditch the concept of HQ, Elite, Troop, Fast Attack and Heavy Support altogether. Units should be classified by their role mechanically, not thematically. I find that the current system doesn't accurately represent the way all units are used and more straight forward classification will lead to players better understanding how units supposed to be used. Classifications like Close Support, Long Support, Harassment, Line Breaker and Tank (as in Tanking Damage and Tar Pitting, I guess an alternate term should be used in a game with actual Tanks). By putting units into these classifications regardless of what it is thematically and then changing Force Org requirements for each army based on these categories will lead to better tactics.

[MC Tic Tac]

Wouldn't a 'simple fix' be use the currant Fantasy system of a increase in choices (Elite, fast, heavy aka Special, Rare) when the game size increase, but is balanced out by a increase in the mimnum core/troop choices.

Also remember the rulebook recommends 1,500 - 2,000pts games for the best balance.

[DarkLink]

A minimum of 1 HQ unit and a maximum of 1 restricted unit for every 1000pts.
A minimum of 2 common units and a maximum of 1 specialised unit for every 500pts.
Two normal unit chioces can be replaced by a Special Named unit/character.


With a minimum of two troops per 500pts, most armies couldn't afford anything but troops. An not a single army in the game could go over 2000pts.

The principle is sound, but your minimum requirements are far, far too high in higher point games. Plus, any army like Guard that has lots of separate units would be hurt by the maximum limits, as their specialist units are still fairly cheap and quite plentiful normally, meaning they'll run out of slots to take anything but infantry platoons quickly. Not that infantry platoons are bad, but the armies would get pretty boring.

[Mauglum.]

Hi Darklink.
I did say 2 'common' units not Troops selections.

If you use more 'themed ' representations , the units currently listed under fast attack heavy support and even some elite slots MAY find thier way into Common units for some forces.

It would need most units to be re-classified , but each codex could include ,different chapters,Craftworlds,Klans etc, simply by changind how the units are classified.

What would be commonly seen in a themed army becomes a 'common' unit, irrespective of if it is currently a fast attack, heavy support or elite .

I am rubbish at explining my ideas, but is this clearer now?

TTFN

[Grabula]

I've always found it slightly odd that there are people out there who feel that if they are restricted in their choices, this limits their 'fun'. Fun is of course subjective but if you want to wargame, and play a system that uses a points system to balance out its games then there are inevitably going to be certain other restrictions for game balance reasons.

Currently, troops in each slot can be purpose built to fulfill a certain role. Much like the real world, not every type of troop is best for every type of thing. Ask a Tank Commander if he wants to take and hold urban terrain, and no one's ever gone to war, a serious war, with only special trained elite forces. It's too expensive and sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.

From a gaming perspective it's easier to balance certain types of troops into certain categories, limiting their usage and their uses. If you don't believe me, spend some serious time designing your own game. I have and as much fun as it is, it's also a heck of a lot of work to get everything working properly. Eventually you come to the conclusion that some things may need to be limited artificially in order to maintain balance.

Finally, ask yourself this...in a game where uber lists tend to break - in my opinion - the game on occasion (and I don't believe the ONE unbeatable list) how much more broken would you find the game if people were allowed to throw together whatever army they wanted?

I played starting with Rogue Trader through second edition pretty heavily. 2nd had the problem of really being hero hammer. Most games broke down into who's HQ could kill the most troops in a game. I stopped playing 3rd and 4th because a lot of those "creative" lists just didn't make a whole lot of sense in the context of the fluff or the game system. I find 5th to be probably the best balanced, most well rounded version of 40K I've experienced and that is in part due to the new FOC and people needing to take some vanilla troop options in order to make sure they can take and keep objectives. In my opinion it adds a depth to the game that has been missing for some time.

[BuFFo]

The FOC, in the current 5th edition, along side with troops only scoring, has brought balance to 40k in a way that 40k has never been balanced before.

I say leave it alone.

No offense, but many of you don't seem to understand the beauty and balance of 5th edition core rule book and missions. I guess you would have had to play through the previous editions AND play Fantasy to understand what a power gaming mess those were/are.

Want to make fluffy/themed lists? Nothing is stopping you! If you want to make a Craftworld list, or a Chaos Marine with GOOD demons, then do it. 40K is meant to be played for FUN, and many player's online forget that. Now, if you have opponent's that won't allow you to do so, that is NOT the games fault at all. That is the player's fault, and their overwhelming fear that anything that is not 'official' by GW's police force is a sign of power gaming.

Make your all Harlequin army list with the Eldar book and find some cool people to play with.

[Paul]

The FOC, in the current 5th edition, along side with troops only scoring, has brought balance to 40k in a way that 40k has never been balanced before.

I say leave it alone.

No offense, but many of you don't seem to understand the beauty and balance of 5th edition core rule book and missions. I guess you would have had to play through the previous editions AND play Fantasy to understand what a power gaming mess those were/are.

Want to make fluffy/themed lists? Nothing is stopping you! If you want to make a Craftworld list, or a Chaos Marine with GOOD demons, then do it. 40K is meant to be played for FUN, and many player's online forget that. Now, if you have opponent's that won't allow you to do so, that is NOT the games fault at all. That is the player's fault, and their overwhelming fear that anything that is not 'official' by GW's police force is a sign of power gaming.

Make your all Harlequin army list with the Eldar book and find some cool people to play with.

I find myself agreeing on all counts.

It IS the player's fault for not wanting to play against a homebrew list. The only problem is that their concerns are some (if not most) of the time justified. It isn't a GW list and because of that they believe they'd best leave it until it goes away.

I believe this is the wrong attitude to have, but I can't think of ways to convince them otherwise. If they don't want to play a non-GW "official" list, then they don't have to.

But then we're back to square one: how do we make theme armies that can be played against?

And yes, I know a Tank Commander wouldn't like to assault into urban terrain and would probably be moved into support of an infantry company. But aside from that very specific situation, the Imperial Guard DOES have massive formations of Leman-Russes and does not hesitate to use them in a concentrated hammer-blow. In fact, many nation's flaws in history (read: France in WWII) were that they didn't utilize their (much better) tanks in this manner.

[Zoa]

Want to make fluffy/themed lists? Nothing is stopping you! If you want to make a Craftworld list, or a Chaos Marine with GOOD demons, then do it. 40K is meant to be played for FUN, and many player's online forget that. Now, if you have opponent's that won't allow you to do so, that is NOT the games fault at all. That is the player's fault, and their overwhelming fear that anything that is not 'official' by GW's police force is a sign of power gaming.

Make your all Harlequin army list with the Eldar book and find some cool people to play with.

Sorry BuFFo but your simply wrong on this point.

Firstly, expecting other people to spend the time, money and effort on something that by rights any opponent can and likely will refuse to face is extremely pretentious, you can do it if you want but don't assume it makes any sense for players you don't know.

Secondly, you know why people don't like facing homebrew lists? Most people suck at writing rules so badly they can't even realize they aren't good at it. My local gaming club has multiple individuals that fit this category, not just for 40k but when it comes to d20 system games and so forth. Most people don't understand the first thing about Game Theory and can't be trusted to write a internally or externally balanced list. Often because they aren't willing to crunch numbers and use the half assed method of 'it feels right' during the actual development process. Its the same reason these people suck as GMs, they're incapable of writing balanced encounters and predicting party and player actions ahead of time. Most people just don't have what it takes to do it to a minimum standard.

Now if you try to claim 'isn't the game about having fun?' then of course your right. However whats fun about playing a game where the outcome is a forgone conclusion based on the skill that went into creating one of the lists?

[Atrotos]

The FOC, in the current 5th edition, along side with troops only scoring, has brought balance to 40k in a way that 40k has never been balanced before.

I say leave it alone.

No offense, but many of you don't seem to understand the beauty and balance of 5th edition core rule book and missions. I guess you would have had to play through the previous editions AND play Fantasy to understand what a power gaming mess those were/are.

Want to make fluffy/themed lists? Nothing is stopping you! If you want to make a Craftworld list, or a Chaos Marine with GOOD demons, then do it. 40K is meant to be played for FUN, and many player's online forget that. Now, if you have opponent's that won't allow you to do so, that is NOT the games fault at all. That is the player's fault, and their overwhelming fear that anything that is not 'official' by GW's police force is a sign of power gaming.

Make your all Harlequin army list with the Eldar book and find some cool people to play with.

Ahh Buffo, you're preaching to the choir. I find it hilarious in the extreme when my own opinions surface against me, it's great to know there are others! You should really come by Rules Manufactorum - you've got the right attitude.

However, steeped as I am in the effort to produce my own custom rules for 40k, any real effort to produce rules on a large scale must consider doing so by the most efficient possible means. This means finding those linchpin rules that cause the game to behave in a way that's undesirable and changing them. Thus, rather than writing an Ordo Xenos Codex, for example, you might attack the FOC thus making an all-Sternguard force possible and, by doing so, paving the road to a Deathwatch force and many other homogeneous forces besides.

Overall 5th edition is very well balanced. But part of that balance involves a stifling of options because of the additional effort required on GW's end to broaden each faction with additional lists.

EDIT: @ Zoa: Rules design usually works best as a group effort. That's why it's so difficult to accomplish - it demands time and interest from several people.

[DarkLink]

Hi Darklink.
I did say 2 'common' units not Troops selections.

If you use more 'themed ' representations , the units currently listed under fast attack heavy support and even some elite slots MAY find thier way into Common units for some forces.

It would need most units to be re-classified , but each codex could include ,different chapters,Craftworlds,Klans etc, simply by changind how the units are classified.

What would be commonly seen in a themed army becomes a 'common' unit, irrespective of if it is currently a fast attack, heavy support or elite .

I am rubbish at explining my ideas, but is this clearer now?

TTFN


Sorry BuFFo but your simply wrong on this point.

Firstly, expecting other people to spend the time, money and effort on something that by rights any opponent can and likely will refuse to face is extremely pretentious, you can do it if you want but don't assume it makes any sense for players you don't know.

Secondly, you know why people don't like facing homebrew lists? Most people suck at writing rules so badly they can't even realize they aren't good at it. My local gaming club has multiple individuals that fit this category, not just for 40k but when it comes to d20 system games and so forth. Most people don't understand the first thing about Game Theory and can't be trusted to write a internally or externally balanced list. Often because they aren't willing to crunch numbers and use the half assed method of 'it feels right' during the actual development process. Its the same reason these people suck as GMs, they're incapable of writing balanced encounters and predicting party and player actions ahead of time. Most people just don't have what it takes to do it to a minimum standard.

Now if you try to claim 'isn't the game about having fun?' then of course your right. However whats fun about playing a game where the outcome is a forgone conclusion based on the skill that went into creating one of the lists?

He's not expecting you to waste a bunch of money on models people won't face. He's saying that you can do whatever the heck you want. If you want to make a bunch of houserules, go ahead. Maybe you won't find a lot of opponents, but that's just kinda the price you pay.

[BuFFo]

Sorry BuFFo but your simply wrong on this point.

Firstly, expecting other people to spend the time, money and effort on something that by rights any opponent can and likely will refuse to face is extremely pretentious, you can do it if you want but don't assume it makes any sense for players you don't know.

I never said anything about spending time, money and effort on anything.

FYI, in my area, me and a few other players REFUSE to play Space Wolf players because there has been a GIANT glut of them, and frankly we got bored of doing so. Walkign into the store, and out of the 6 people looking for games, 5 are Space Wolves. Yeah, playing them for the first 60 times was okay, but it has gotten boring.

So your point about 'refusal' is moot, because no one is forced to play this game at all in the first place.

You can refuse to play someone for ANY reason, so this is not an issue with using harlequins as Troop Choices in an Eldar army.

This is an issue of having fun and personal choice.

If a player is NEW, then I will play without question, but all the power gaming idiots at my store who jump on anything the internet says is powerful and game winning gets shut down quickly in my area.

Just like they shut down on imagination, we shut down on power gaming.

The thing is, they never give imagination a chance. Never. Ever. If it ain't official, they won't play it at all.


Secondly, you know why people don't like facing homebrew lists? Most people suck at writing rules so badly they can't even realize they aren't good at it.

Yeah, and after the first game of using House Rules, guess what happens? You HELP the other person tweak their rules. Heaven forbid you actually take the time to help out a fellow hobbyist in the game.


Now if you try to claim 'isn't the game about having fun?' then of course your right. However whats fun about playing a game where the outcome is a forgone conclusion based on the skill that went into creating one of the lists?

Same could be said about 'legal' lists. Necron players do NOT exist in my local area. You know why? Two reasons.

1) Necrons are nigh unplayable in 5th edition when both players are of equal skill. It is rather boring to see the army phase out on turn 2 or 3 for both players, especially the guy who spent 800 Bucks on models he can't use unless his opponent is not experienced.

2) When one of the Necron players attempted to HAVE FUN, by creating a few house rules, I had no issue with it and we played and HAD FUN. When he attempted to play against the more "power gaming, online forum trolling" players in my area, they simply refused. They didn't even TRY out the new rules, claiming he was trying to be a power gamer or cheater.

That is the sad state our hobby is in at the moment. Blame GW for messing everything up, and then when the Hobbyists attempt to fix the errors so they can PLAY THE GAME, they get treated like criminals from the very people they wish to have fun with.

It is a double standard, and I don't expect many people here to understand this, because this is the internet, and frankly, this is where the majority of our hobby's hypocrites come to congregate.

Call me whatever you want, I couldn't care less. I give both power gamers and fluff gamers a chance at having fun. It seems that power gamers are always the ones never giving house rules a chance.

[Denzark]

Firstly, as to who can score ie secure an objective. I think that, when you dig in on pre-prepared defences (real life now) you would use you heavy weapons, tanks in berms, etc. The idea that you could only use troops is so musch pish. Are you telling me a titan can't take an obejctive but a single lone eldar guardian can? Rubbish. A single ork boy can take an objective but 10 sternguard with all their skills can't?

Makes absolutely no sense except in one context - troop squads are only truly effective maxed out in numbers, or in transports. GW would rather you bought 3 troop boxes to make 20 man squads, or 1 box and a transport box, than 1 troop squad box which you split into 2 five man teams like in 4th Ed, purely to fill the FOC. Guard squads are cheaper in points and more expensive in moolah.

I liked the squad at over half strength rule from previously - that restriction made a similar level of tactical thought necessary, as does only troops now.

On one of my rare occasions, I will agree with Buffo - 5th ed is massively balanced compared to some earlier offerings.

However, to bring back cosmic balance, I would say I disagree with the vitriol about home brewed lists - most people create something to have their cake and eat it. They don't penalise themsleves enough to accoutn for creating something to exactly how they want.


Remember the old Vehicle design rules? Even Jervis pointed out that, if you used those rules and created an existing vehicle, the points would come out atroughyl 25% more. To account for the fact you are gettign soemthing tailor made.

I have some faith in the rough balance provided by the company (even after Gav Throrpe butchered my poor World Eater list) - I have no faith that Timmy the slightly perspiring geek can push a decent homebrew together.

[the_puritan]

What if being a scoring unit were a made into a keyworded "special ability"?
Certain units would naturally have it, and others could be upgraded to get it (or get it by virtue of another unit/character granting it to them)

In doing so, you could essentially throw the FoC out the window (although, from a personal standpoint, i think you should still have every force lead by a HQ'ish unit/charater... but, that's just me) since you could control who/what could be exclusively spammed by restricting the ability to score. Also, they could increase the amount of control points generated by the stock scenarios so as to make Scoring units even more attractive without mandating that you take any at all.

This shift also serves GW by enabling people to buy (and actually use) as many of something as they want without having to resort to Apocalypse.

Obviously, it would take some (probably prohibitively) heavy updating to get every 'dex onboard, but it's a concept i could get behind.

[Atrotos]

Question for Discussion: What happens if you disable the FOC completely? Every unit is scoring... does that break 40k? Would imagination and theme-builds be able to overcome power-lists and cheese? All you need to have an army make sense is the 1-2 HQ choices... so what's the hardest army you can make with that restriction?

[whitestar333]

I remember reading the rumors for 5th edition and I kinda wish some of those actually happened, specifically regarding scoring units. I remember the cries of "SUX" when everyone found out that only troops choices could score. Does anyone remember the supremacy of the Godzilla list, with 8 SCORING monstrous creatures? I, for one, do not miss those days (and I'm a tyranid player!).

Having observed many games and complaints, I postulated what kinds of tweaks could be made to 5th edition in light of the most recent trends. I wish to talk to my friends at my LGS to see if they want to try a couple games with the following changes. NOTE: I HAVE NOT TRIED THIS YET:
1) All models with the type Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bike, Jetbike, or Beast count as scoring. If being transported, does NOT count as scoring
2) For every 'Troops' choice taken for an army list, one 'Elite', 'Fast Attack', or 'Heavy' choice is allowed. There is no limit on the number of FOC choices an army may take. For example, one player may take 4 'Troops' choices, and 4 'Heavy Support' choices.
3) For every two 'Troops' choices taken, the player must take one 'HQ' choice (Note this is an HQ choice so you could field two Chaos Daemon heralds per two 'Troops', for example)

I'm not saying that this is the final solution, but I think it would make army lists more interesting, at the very least. Sure, one might see more characters on the field, but making a list knowing that you HAVE to take several HQ units if you want to take the 'good stuff' might force players to take cheaper HQ units. The only problem I could foresee is a ridiculous number of Tervigons, but then there would be fewer of the heavier hitters on the field anyway.
This might allow some realism back into the game, and less reliance on transports to win objective-based games. No more Eldar using Star Engines to claim objectives on the last turn of the game.

[DarkLink]

Question for Discussion: What happens if you disable the FOC completely? Every unit is scoring... does that break 40k? Would imagination and theme-builds be able to overcome power-lists and cheese? All you need to have an army make sense is the 1-2 HQ choices... so what's the hardest army you can make with that restriction?

That's what happened last edition. And no one took any troops beyond the minimum. Well, almost no one.

The problem was, troops just aren't usually very good units, at least compared to the more elite ones. Why take tactical marines when you can skimp on them and fit in an extra predator, or couple land speeders or something.

Unfortunately (in my opinion), rather than fixing the problem and boosting the power of basic troops (or more likely just making them cheaper) in order to make them competitive choices with the more elite units, GW made only troops scoring. This did have the benefit of forcing the change on all armies at once, rather than one at a time as they updated codices. Because of this, I can't really blame GW for the decision.

[Col.Gravis]

I fall in with the crowd which says no to change, more armies are made of troops now supported by other elements not other elements with a bare minimum of troops, and for core list's thats exacly how it should be IMHO. Certainly by all means more variety in lists to allows some extra cool themed lists, but thats a codex issue and one which as suggested can always be covered by house rules, at least for those of us who play with a regular group rather then with pickup games.

Finally is GWs solution 'realistic', no not at all, but it works as a balancing mechanism, 40k is a game, NOT a simulation, balance is more important.

[BuFFo]

I fall in with the crowd which says no to change, more armies are made of troops now supported by other elements not other elements with a bare minimum of troops, and for core list's thats exacly how it should be IMHO. Certainly by all means more variety in lists to allows some extra cool themed lists, but thats a codex issue and one which as suggested can always be covered by house rules, at least for those of us who play with a regular group rather then with pickup games.

Finally is GWs solution 'realistic', no not at all, but it works as a balancing mechanism, 40k is a game, NOT a simulation, balance is more important.

Agreed.

If I could have it my way, I would keep 5th edition as the final version of 40k. I just know 6th edition is gonna mess about and ruin a good thing.

[Nabterayl]

I'm with Col. Gravis and BuFFo too. I like the fact that this balancing mechanism continues to allow GW to make some units better than others.

The way I see it, GW has a fairly narrow set of variables when it comes to making units "competitive" with each other. You plot shooty killiness, shooty resilience, assault killiness, and assault mobility on a per-point, per-model, and mobility basis, and that's about 90% of the balance variables right there, I'd say. Despite having seven axes, I don't feel like that composite plot really does all that good a job of representing the balance variables of warfare, and therefore I don't feel like it really does all that good a job of representing the fluff. I like the fact that some units are not scoring because it adds more nuance to the plot, and lets the army lists do a better job of representing the fluff I like (still imperfectly, but better).

[DarkLink]

I'm with Col. Gravis and BuFFo too. I like the fact that this balancing mechanism continues to allow GW to make some units better than others.

The way I see it, GW has a fairly narrow set of variables when it comes to making units "competitive" with each other. You plot shooty killiness, shooty resilience, assault killiness, and assault mobility on a per-point, per-model, and mobility basis, and that's about 90% of the balance variables right there, I'd say. Despite having seven axes, I don't feel like that composite plot really does all that good a job of representing the balance variables of warfare, and therefore I don't feel like it really does all that good a job of representing the fluff. I like the fact that some units are not scoring because it adds more nuance to the plot, and lets the army lists do a better job of representing the fluff I like (still imperfectly, but better).

I'd prefer it if GW made more of a place in every army for more troops through their codex (sometimes they do, such as plague marines, but sometimes the elite units are just plain better if you neglect the scoring issue. And by better, I mean more cost efficient, not more killy).

Elites are meant to be killy, but if you could use Tacticals as a better firebase unit, then people would take them even if everything scored. But as it is now, you end up paying 200 odd points for a heavy and special weapon, and some other bodies that kinda just sit around waiting for a chance to do something. Other than that, they score objectives. Yeah, tacticals are ok. But I feel that they simply can't compete with most of the elite Marine units (anything from vindicators to terminators) in terms of providing something for your army. They're there to score, currently, as aside from that there are other units in the codex that can do their job, but better.

If everything scored, but Tacticals got some cool special abilities that made them competitive choices with the more elite SM units, I'd prefer that to only troops scoring.

On a side not, I think I would prefer a Core, Specialist, Elite, HQ fantasy style force org chart, with more units in the Core. For Space Marines, for example, it could be;
Core
Tacticals, Scouts, Assault Marines, Devestators

Specialist;
Vindicators, Predators, Techmarine, etc

Elite;
Terminators, Veterans, Land Raiders, Honor Guard/Command Squads

HQ
Current HQ units

I think broadening the Core choices in armies would lead to more flexible list-building and more variety in armies, since you wouldn't be stuck with the exact same 2-3 units for your troops in every single army.

[Nabterayl]

I dunno, that's kind of what I'd like to avoid, honestly. Making Tacticals a better firebase unit is just another way of increasing their shooty killiness per point and/or their shooty resilience per point - you can still plot it on the seven-axis graph of balance.

With tactical space marines in particular I don't necessarily disagree - you take tactical space marines because they're the best in the company, not because you have the most of them (although you do). But I'm not sure that it fits all armies that Troops be made competitive choices on the basis of the SAGOB.* I mean, maybe Crisis suits really should be just better in SAGOB terms, point for point, than fire warriors. Maybe you should want to take fire warriors for reasons other than what they can kill and what they can absorb.

[DarkLink]

I dunno, that's kind of what I'd like to avoid, honestly. Making Tacticals a better firebase unit is just another way of increasing their shooty killiness per point and/or their shooty resilience per point - you can still plot it on the seven-axis graph of balance.

With tactical space marines in particular I don't necessarily disagree - you take tactical space marines because they're the best in the company, not because you have the most of them (although you do). But I'm not sure that it fits all armies that Troops be made competitive choices on the basis of the SAGOB.* I mean, maybe Crisis suits really should be just better in SAGOB terms, point for point, than fire warriors. Maybe you should want to take fire warriors for reasons other than what they can kill and what they can absorb.

Well, I don't care for any particular change to tactical squads. I'm just saying that the problem was, no one took basic troops because elite units were such a better deal. There was no reason to take basic troops.

GW's solution was to make only troops scoring, which worked pretty efficiently. I personally would have preferred to make the troops units more competitive options, either by giving them better options or making them cheaper, or both.

GWs way works fine, and I'm not complaining, really. I do feel, however, it leads to people thinking "man, I have to take tacticals to score. But I want to spend all those points on better, more efficient units that are more awesomer."

My way, instead of people thinking "man, I have to take troops to the exclusion of better units", they're thinking "man, do I take these tactical Marines, or do I take these Sternguard, or do I take assault Marines, of do I take these Scouts, they're all so good".

Subtle difference, and isn't too big a deal, but I do think the game would be a little better off that way.

Plus I'm just not a fan of vanilla tacticals. Compared to Grey Hunters, or CSMs, or BA Assault Marines, I just think they should be a little better than they are. They're not bad, but not as good as they should be, I think. Or maybe not quite as cheap as they should be, one of the two.

[Col.Gravis]

but sometimes the elite units are just plain better if you neglect the scoring issue. And by better, I mean more cost efficient, not more killy).

But if your troops choices were as 'elite' as your elites choices what would exactly be the difference? I disagree you see, you have 'better' units or you have scoring units, you can't, and should'nt, be able to have your cake and eat it.

And of course you don't have to take so many of those troops at all, you can still opt for those better elite units and go after your opponents troops instead.

[TSINI]

I thought i would re-post my reply from the rules manufactorum here for all to see


I added a simple scoring system to a game a few months ago

all units within 6" of the objective are counted.

HQ - 2 objective points
Elites - 1 objective point
Troops - 3 objective points
Fast Attack - 1 objective point
Heavy support - 1 objective point
All vehicles - half an objective point

each side simply adds up the amount of "objective points" and the player with the most controls that objective. Repeat for each objective, the player controlling the most objectives wins.
note that transports are still counted, so troops in transports are worth 3.5 points for example.

this way everything in your army is scoring, but troops are still valuable for holding objectives.


I personally quite like this system because it means troops are still valuable for holding objectives, if you have an elites on an objective, they will HAVE to kill the enemy troops advancing on their position or it will be lost. but the system also represents the fact that of course an elite team of stormtroopers can hold an objective, arguably better than a gaggle of untrained grunts.

of course, this does throw the balance of the game slightly, but not by much- troops are still 3x more valuable than an elites or anything else (the HQ being 2 points was out of personal preference due to the fluff of the mission)

I also added:

of course you could always screw with this system to represent a more "firepower" based system, making heavy support and elites options score more points than the weaker troops, this way a game is based on the idea of "might is right" for example

HQ - 2 objective points
Elites - 3 objective points
Troops - 1 objective point
Fast Attack - 2 objective points
Heavy support - 3 objective points
All vehicles - 1 objective point

it would certainly make for an interesting game.

showing the versatility of the system for more fun orientated games giving the players a different tactical challenge

[DarkLink]

But if your troops choices were as 'elite' as your elites choices what would exactly be the difference? I disagree you see, you have 'better' units or you have scoring units, you can't, and should'nt, be able to have your cake and eat it.

And of course you don't have to take so many of those troops at all, you can still opt for those better elite units and go after your opponents troops instead.

Well then they should be cheaper where needed. Then troops would be a nice unit because of how cheap they are, and how many bodies and guns they provide. And of course, this supposes that all units are scoring, rather than troops. Currently, scoring is what makes troops "better".

[BuFFo]

Currently, scoring is what makes troops "better".

Agreed.

Such a wonderful change to the overall balance and health to the game.

Also, no more victory point objectives. Thank God!

[Col.Gravis]

Well then they should be cheaper where needed. Then troops would be a nice unit because of how cheap they are, and how many bodies and guns they provide. And of course, this supposes that all units are scoring, rather than troops. Currently, scoring is what makes troops "better".

It's a possible solution, though one which would jack up the price of an army even further (which means I'm sure in time GW will do it!), surely a more reasonable way to do it would be to make sure that the elite units are costed more appropriately? (Note I don't say costed higher as there are examples which are already overcosted for what they can do), with that we don't end up putting out yet more investment to field an army, while a small game remains quick and manageable (and of course you can still collect more for lager games if you so wish).

[DarkLink]

Right, there's multiple ways to approach the problem.

[Porty1119]

Well, some things absolutely need to be fixed on the FOC. What the heck does a Valkyrie have in common with a Sentinel? Use logic people!!!!
Another point: My friend and I have been working on our own game based off a stripped-down version of 40k mixed with Flames of War. It relates to this thread because I created different company types, thus dictating which units are available. For example, a heavy armored company can take an infantry platoon, two tank platoons (squadrons) and a superheavy. In comparison, an airborne army can take an infantry platoon, transport helicopter platoon, attack helicopter platoon and light fast-attack vehicle platoon. Low on slots? Play a multicompany game. It's that simple. Also, each army has a set number of support slots that can be filled by several different Support-classed units, like artillery and air support.
I really think this system would work great for 40k, basically grouping units into a company based in their role, and having a handful of support slots that can really be used for anything, so maybe your conscript farm could get some heavy armor or something like that.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
I used a idea similar to WHFB army selection in a new rule set .

Start with the 'Core unit' selections .(This sets the army theme.)

When enough of a type of 'Core unit' is taken this allows a 'HQ unit' to be taken.

A 'HQ unit' allows up to 3 'Support units' to be taken.

A single 'Specailaist unit' may be taken for every 2 'Core units' taken

A single Restricted unit can be taken for every 2 'Specialist units' taken.

This builds thematic and balanced armies without artificial restrictions.IF the units are catogorised correctly.

Note Core units are not necissarily 40k 'Troops' chioces , as Specialist units are not necissarily 'elites ' or Support units Heavy support.;)

TTFN

[Melissia]

Well then they should be cheaper where needed. Then troops would be a nice unit because of how cheap they are, and how many bodies and guns they provide. And of course, this supposes that all units are scoring, rather than troops. Currently, scoring is what makes troops "better".

That depends on the army. Take Sisters, for example. Part of what makes Battle Sisters a bit better than, say, Celestians is that they're cheaper, but have the same BS and the most valuable upgrade choices anyway. They were always very good to spam, all 5th edition does is strengthen this value. Mind you the codex isn't made for fifth edition, so it might be a bad comparison.

Personally I'd prefer an all-celestian army if they were both scoring AND had BP+CCW, but even then you could field a bit more of an army with Battle Sisters than Celestians.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, Sisters are a good example of a good troop choice. They're very good. You actually want to take them, because they're cheap, durable and have excellent firepower.

Celestians should probably get a little better (and definitely get that BP/CCW option, at the least), in order to differentiate them from Battle Sisters a little.


Some other armies, though, don't have such good choices. For example, the main reason to take tactical squads is to score. If you remove that variable, then most other things in the army do what a tactical squad can do, better. Tactical squads definitely aren't a bad unit, but they simply don't stand out as being good, not the way that Sisters of Battle squads are.

[Melissia]

At the same time, however, Tactical Marines are flat out better than Battle Sisters in almost every way.

[therealjohnny5]

their hair isn't as cool though...

[Porty1119]

The forum either ate my last post or I put it somewhere else. Basically, I said that my friend and I created a game with 40K-esque rules, and the FOC varied based on army classification. For example, an Airborne list can take an infantry platoon and a platoon (read: squadron) of attack helos, assault helos, and flight fast-attack vehicles. Each army can also select two 'support platoons', which range from artillery to super-heavies. The point is to only allow a company (army) to access units that fit in with its role (no super-heavies in an airborne company, sorry!) as well as support tacked on from other companies.

[Mauglum.]

Hi Porty.
Your idea is similar to mine.
Classify the cominality NOT the function of units to get a themed list.

Using the Core-HQ-Specialised and Restricted unit classifacation you do not pre determine fuction like fast attack and heavy support do.

Tanks are core units in a Armoured list.

Armoured infantry are core units in a Mechanisd list.

Infantry are core units in a foot sloggers list.

Air bourne units are core units in an airbourne list.

Etc,
And the other types of unit fill in the the support specialied and restricted slots.

[Porty1119]

Lovin' that idea...

[scadugenga]

I've always like the % of points rules for force allocation. Makes for more variable armies.

That being said, people will find a way to min-max regardless of what you do.

And those that prefer to spam, will do so again, regardless--unless it's a highlander tournament.