Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So much thought has been put into rejecting "Unbound" armies in all but the fluffiest of situations, but I don't think we realized today that the Battle-Forged lists aren't going to be much better.
To Field a Battle-Forged you still have to follow a FOC (1-2 HQ, 0-3 Elite, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Fast, 0-3 Heavy), but now you can take as many FOC's as you want. It isn't just double FOC at 2000, it is unlimited FOC at any point level.

I think this will be unplayable unless the lists have been pre-negotiated ahead of time. I imagine my gaming group will agree and we will house-rule it to 1 FOC + 1 Ally/Formation or something like that.

It is nearly inconceivable for me to want to play 40k without fixing it, but I'm curious if the wider community will share my view.

ETA. I was exaggerating in the poll about how many Riptides. At 1850 you are limited to 7 riptides.

While it seems mental, it's not too bad. I can't really think of an army that could benefit massively from it at anything less than 2kpoints anyway. If you want to spam big guns, go Unbound and forget the troops/HQ tax, and if you want troops, 6slots is enough in most cases.

 Paradigm wrote:
While it seems mental, it's not too bad. I can't really think of an army that could benefit massively from it at anything less than 2kpoints anyway. If you want to spam big guns, go Unbound and forget the troops/HQ tax, and if you want troops, 6slots is enough in most cases.

Yeah, I agree. With Unbound being an option now, if you really, absolutely must spam your 9 Heavy Support choices, it seems like it'd be a waste to blow 200-250 points just to keep it technically a Battle-Forged force. Might as well just throw the requirements out and play Unbound.

Oh, and just to nitpick your poll options, OP, you're still not running a Battle-Forged 9-Riptide list at 1850. At a *minimum*, you need to be playing close to 2100 to be able to afford the minimum troops and HQs to have three detachments. And that's assuming you're running barebones Riptides. If you want to run them with anything decent, you're edging up to 2500 points, at which point your opponent is likely to have a lot of toys with which to deal with them.

 Paradigm wrote:
While it seems mental, it's not too bad. I can't really think of an army that could benefit massively from it at anything less than 2kpoints anyway. If you want to spam big guns, go Unbound and forget the troops/HQ tax, and if you want troops, 6slots is enough in most cases.

I don't think you get it. Here are a few legal "Battle forged" 1850 point Lists. They each include 3 FOC's.

Tyranids:
6X Dakka Flyrant
6X 13 TGaunts
Crone

Tau:
3x Ethereal
7x Riptide
6x 6 Firewarriors
Skyray

CSM:
3x Sorcerer
5x 10 Cultists
12 cultists
8x Heldrake

Some of the more powerful lists (Or at least cheesy ones) still depend on unique pieces of wargear. For example, you still won't be able to bring anymore than two Chapter Masters with 3++ and Eternal Warrior, you can still only bring one Screamerstar, etc.
Then again, a lot of other things become a lot more powerful through ease of spam. Hopefully, the new rules compensate for that and will promote and encourage more versatile lists.

tag8833 wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
While it seems mental, it's not too bad. I can't really think of an army that could benefit massively from it at anything less than 2kpoints anyway. If you want to spam big guns, go Unbound and forget the troops/HQ tax, and if you want troops, 6slots is enough in most cases.

I don't think you get it. Here are a few legal "Battle forged" 1850 point Lists. They each include 3 FOC's.

Tyranids:
6X Dakka Flyrant
6X 13 TGaunts
Crone

Would you not be better off using either the unlimited spawn dataslate or unbound for even moreMCs?

Tau:
3x Ethereal
7x Riptide
6x 6 Firewarriors
Skyray

Again, why bother with the troops. If you're going to double down on firepower, whypay the troops/HQ tax when you could take more tides or hammerheads? Fire warriors are good, a whole army of tanks and MCs is better.

CSM:
3x Sorcerer
5x 10 Cultists
12 cultists
8x Heldrake

The same applies. Why take fodder troops that won't survive to score when you can go unbound and take better units (IG do troops+psykers better)from other codexes.

The point is, if you're looking to break the game this much, Unbound is almost always a better option.

Developing house rules is easy:

What do we argue over the most?

In the interests of having fun games and not getting all bothered it is the way to go.

So specifically Battleforged FOC remains to be seen until we play it.

Its no different to me from regular single force org min maxing and list cheesing.

So its not worth ruining the fun for people that DO want to play with it for the sake of playing it.

Reasonable people wont be bring 9 riptides or hell drakes with minimum troops and HQS.

And those who would you probably wont play anyway so who cares.


EDIT: House rules are for actual rules that break the game and have no reasonable resolution besides a roll off.
Also for rules with multiple interpretations.

 Paradigm wrote:
The point is, if you're looking to break the game this much, Unbound is almost always a better option.

I thing most people (like me) are going to refuse to play against any but the fluffiest of unbound lists. Gaming groups will probably generally outlaw them. So that will force people to use battle-forged armies.

The problem is battle-forged armies aren't really usable as written, unless you plan to pre-negotiate the lists every time you play a game.

The point of the FOC is to make it so that if I am following the FOC, I can play a game against another player following the FOC and still have fun (have a non-zero chance of winning). Unlimited FOC's means that isn't the case. As a fan of fun, I vote for house-rules.

tag8833 wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
The point is, if you're looking to break the game this much, Unbound is almost always a better option.

I thing most people (like me) are going to refuse to play against any but the fluffiest of unbound lists. Gaming groups will probably generally outlaw them. So that will force people to use battle-forged armies.

The problem is battle-forged armies aren't really usable as written, unless you plan to pre-negotiate the lists every time you play a game.

The point of the FOC is to make it so that if I am following the FOC, I can play a game against another player following the FOC and still have fun (have a non-zero chance of winning). Unlimited FOC's means that isn't the case. As a fan of fun, I vote for house-rules.

And tell me, how many games were played to collect this data? Or were still relying on speculation? If we sling them out before actually knowing then we'll never know ?

Plenty 'o times in 6ed I had zero chance against my enemy, using and abiding by the FOC, the FOC favors some armies naturally, did we house rule restrictions on them in the name of fun? My FLGS didn't, and tournaments, maybe slightly for some specific armies.

At what point do you House-rule something (Battleforged FOC)?

After I've read the rule(s) in question and talked it over with my gaming group. Not 2 days before the BRB actually comes out.

 kronk wrote:
At what point do you House-rule something (Battleforged FOC)?

After I've read the rule(s) in question and talked it over with my gaming group. Not 2 days before the BRB actually comes out.

same here (didn't find a relevant option for this answer in the poll). We're gonna play games for weeks and then decide what we'll keep and what we'll change

tag8833 wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
The point is, if you're looking to break the game this much, Unbound is almost always a better option.

I thing most people (like me) are going to refuse to play against any but the fluffiest of unbound lists. Gaming groups will probably generally outlaw them. So that will force people to use battle-forged armies.

So you'll not play a 7 Riptide unbound list, but you will play against a 6-Riptide Battleforged list that spends a few points on minimal troops and HQ. Surely you're refusing based on what's in the list rather than what type of list it is?

It really isn't about Unbound vs FOC, it's about whether you're playing a casual player looking for a fun game or a WAAC cheese player that will exploit whatever system you play to give them a chance of winning.

"No, I'm alright with both Unbound and house-ruling other rules".

 Paradigm wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
The point is, if you're looking to break the game this much, Unbound is almost always a better option.

I thing most people (like me) are going to refuse to play against any but the fluffiest of unbound lists. Gaming groups will probably generally outlaw them. So that will force people to use battle-forged armies.

So you'll not play a 7 Riptide unbound list, but you will play against a 6-Riptide Battleforged list that spends a few points on minimal troops and HQ. Surely you're refusing based on what's in the list rather than what type of list it is?

It really isn't about Unbound vs FOC, it's about whether you're playing a casual player looking for a fun game or a WAAC cheese player that will exploit whatever system you play to give them a chance of winning.

Nope, I would house rule it in a fashion that would prevent 6 Riptides. My current inclination is a rule that says 1 Primary Detachment + 1 ally or formation No Unbound, because I think my group would go along with that. That means 4 Riptides.

My personal preference would be a Percentage base FOC so that the game is more scalable. 20% elites. 2 Riptides at 1500. 3 At 2000, 7 at 4000. But I don't think my group would go along with it, and I will defer to what the group decides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vector Strike wrote:

 kronk wrote:
At what point do you House-rule something (Battleforged FOC)?

After I've read the rule(s) in question and talked it over with my gaming group. Not 2 days before the BRB actually comes out.

same here (didn't find a relevant option for this answer in the poll). We're gonna play games for weeks and then decide what we'll keep and what we'll change

I should have included that option. I was thinking of this poll as a hypothetical. My group certainly isn't going to make a House rule before we have the book in hand and talk it over first. But there are lots of people that already have the book, and we know what the FOC rules will be.

 kronk wrote:
At what point do you House-rule something (Battleforged FOC)?

After I've read the rule(s) in question and talked it over with my gaming group. Not 2 days before the BRB actually comes out.

This. I'm not making any house ruiling claims until I see the rule and see how my gaming group takes to it.

+exault

My gaming group is casual enough that I'm not worried about the potential abuse from this system. We don't really have TFG who thinks for some reason that if he doesn't run as many Riptides as possible then Jervis will come to his house, strap him to a chair, and beat him to death with a hammer.

When it proves to be a problem. I love messing with systems and house ruling lots of stuff, but there's no reason to mess with something unless it's actually a thing your group is having issues with.

That is the least of their mistakes so no, not that rule. Some other rule maybe.

It's sad that the reception here is "omg just one".

The way it looks you can ally with yourself and take multiple allied detachments in a battleforged list.