I'll put this here, because it is a rules change.

Given:

1) The current Force Org Chart allows for up to three slots per Special Unit Type (Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy).

2) The current 'thought process' appears to be:
"One is useless, two is effectively one, three is overpowered."
(IE: 3 Wraithlords, 3 Falcons, 3 Basilisks, etc. etc.)

Does there need to be a change to the Force Org Chart?

I've considered the following:

1) Remove 1 from all Special unit slots (2 Elite, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Heavy).

2) Declare that you can never take more than 2 of a specific Codex Entry.

Thoughts?

--Brian

I think a good change would be that you can only take 1 choice from either Fast attack , elite or heavy.

I E if you have 4 troops you could have 2 elites 1 fast attack 1 heavy or a combination of whatever.

I think that instead of going by units, it should be a selection of common, uncommon and rare choices like they use in WFB. Sometimes I really want three HQ choices. (Two Warbosses to pick Nobs as troops, plus Mad Doc Grotsnik to give them cybork bodies without needing a painboy tagging along.) Cheesy, I know but I'm sure others have considered similar devilry.

i'd really like a command squad led by a librarian, chaplain, and captain as well.

would be an awesome fluffy unit... and I can't do it :(

Well, if you want a legal change in the force organizaton chart, i'd recomend playing planet strike.
Or Apocalypse

I've been trying at my FLGS to get together an Apocalypse game ever since it came out, any all I get are excuses or boasts of huge armies that are not backed up. Most people I play against are struggling to put together 1,000 points.

The Force Organization chart already gives you problems at different levels of play. I'm thinking of building a Grey Knights army but having to have 2 troop choices uses up a large percentage of points that could be used for better choices. This prevents a cheese army where it is only terminators and Grandmaster HQs all over the place. Once you get up around 3000+ points it becomes a limiting factor once again for a large majority of armies. I believe most armies that are heavily leaning towards a single FOC selection have weaknesses that can be exploited by a well balanced force.

In 5th edition this has been rectified by making Troop choices the only scoring unit. By taking a list with only the minimum troop choices you lose the opportunity to secure objectives on the board and can only hope instead to contest the different objectives instead.

Hi all.
This is another prime example of the better idea already being used for WH, so 40k gets 'something crap' because it 'has to be different'.

IF 40k force organisation was re-structured to follow WH system.

Unit Types.

Heroic HQ.(Rare HQs Special characters etc.)
HQ.
Standard units.(The most common type of units found in this army.)
Specialised units.(The more limited unit types with highly specialised battle field role.)
Restricted units.( The very limited units due to high demand, that cover an armies 'themed weakness'.)

An army MUST include one HQ and a minimum of 2 standard units.

For every 500pts you may add an aditional HQ.
For every 1500 pts you may swap an HQ for an heroic HQ.

For every 1000pts, you must include 2minimum standard units.
For every 500pts you may include up to one specilised unit
For every 1000pts you may unclude up to one restricted unit.

For a 1500 pt game ,;-
You MUST include one HQ,
You may have up to 3 HQs, one of which may be swapped for a Heroic HQ.
You must include at least 2 standard units.
You may have up to 3 specialised units
You may have up to one restricted unit.

This means units can be classified by rarity NOT function.
EG SM assault marines could be standard , specialised or restricted unit ,dependant on what army they are in.Even though their function is ALWAYS 'fast attack.'

(Why do GW feel it necisary to use nosensical options for 40k just to be different to WH, when most of the game mechanics are used in both games?)

TTFN
Lanrak.

I dunno, the fifth edition rules for force org. seem sound to me. but then i've had no experience WHFB or any other wwar game for that matter. but i do agree that it's not perfect, it means that swarm armies like Imp guard have a mass advantage simply because they have like 5 models per every 1 of any non swarm army inn their troop choice. For example if SM had their full alotment for troops, say 60 tacticals, Imp guard would have something on the order of 300 models for their alotment. and a 3+ Sv won't save you from 300 shots, odds dictate SM will fail 2/3 of the save taking a total of 200 wounds ><

Uh, they would not. A 3+ means they don't fail 2/3rds of the time.

60 marines only gets you about 200 guardsmen. Math hammering this example would be worthless, since it's not a very realistic one.

Remember that guardsman will hit less, wound less, and their opponents will save more often than they'll fail. Space Marines will hit more, wound more and the guardsmen will get NO save against their weapons.

Hi all.
Do you agree that force organisation is better when it lists rarity of unit type, rather than just the 'broad function' of the unit within the force?

As it doesnt need clumsy ad hoc game restrictions to enforce a preference of a unit type.(EG 'Only 'troops' can hold objectives' nonsense.)
Or slighlty less than sensible definitions, EG
SM scouts (training to be proper SMs ) are elites are they?
An HQ unit with great assault weapon are a Heavy support unit?

WH got the best GW method, so 40k is left with a gak alternative, just for the sake of it.IMO.

TTFN
lanrak.

I think a hybrid of both classifications would be appropriate.

Scouts should be a standard unit, available as a troops choice. An HQ is an HQ, not a HS.

I do like the idea of certain HQ or unit choices "opening up", "closing off", or rearranging the type of certain selections in the FOC with this set up. For instance, Wraithguard are a Special Troops unit and Wraithlords are Restricted, but for every unit of w'guard you take, you may take a w'lord as a Special Unit - but you can't take Guardians as Standard Troops. Or if taking an Phoenix Lord you may take 1-2 Aspects as standard instead of Special units or make them count as Troops for scoring objectives. An Autarch could allow you to shift the classification of 1-3 units, allowing you to take Fast Attack units or Heavy Support Units as Elites, so long as they're not Restricted - Warwalkers may be a Standard Heavy selection with 1-3 per unit, but an Autarch allows them to take an addition 1-3 as a Standard Elites choice as well.

This would allow for specialized army builds for theme or fluff armies and still retain a level of balance - not overpowered and not underpowered - so long as the checks and balances are appropriate.

Keefer wrote:I dunno, the fifth edition rules for force org. seem sound to me. but then i've had no experience WHFB or any other wwar game for that matter. but i do agree that it's not perfect, it means that swarm armies like Imp guard have a mass advantage simply because they have like 5 models per every 1 of any non swarm army inn their troop choice. For example if SM had their full alotment for troops, say 60 tacticals, Imp guard would have something on the order of 300 models for their alotment. and a 3+ Sv won't save you from 300 shots, odds dictate SM will fail 2/3 of the save taking a total of 200 wounds ><

Unrealistic perhaps RxGhost, but I'm into Mathhammer

200 Guardsmen - 400 Lasgun Shots
1/2 Hit - 200 Hits
1/3 Wound - 67ish wounds
1/3 Unsaved - 22ish Unsaved Wounds
22ish Marines dead (far from 200 FYI)

60 Marines - 120 Bolter Shots
2/3 Hit - 80 Hits
2/3 Wounds - 53ish wounds
53ish Guardsmen dead (thats quite a few)

22 Marines = 22x16 = 352pts cost
53 Guardsmen = 53x5 = 265pts cost

So marines lose more points. Another reason why horde may be slightly better?

Maybe that was off topic but I like to Mathhammer stuff

Hi again.
I dont dis agree with 'HQ set up ' influencing army composition.
But special charaters is just 'guilding the lily' for marketing reasons.

Eg SM commander on a bike , not Specific Named Character.( for sale at £20 .)
Would let the force take bike monted options as standard.
Infantry units move to specialised.
And other options are moved to restricted.
(Just an example of simple theming from alternate HQ set up.)

Why tell you the fuction of a unit, NOT its comparative rarity?
The stats and weapons/equipment tell you the function already!

Moveing units from/to 'standard/ specialised/ restricted' is less confusing than moving a unit through 'function titles' when the function doesnt change!IMO.

(One kid I know thought that BA assault marines couldnt use thier jump pack when taken as troops!)

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:Hi again.
I dont dis agree with 'HQ set up ' influencing army composition.
But special charaters is just 'guilding the lily' for marketing reasons.

Eg SM commander on a bike , not Specific Named Character.( for sale at £20 .)
Would let the force take bike monted options as standard.
Infantry units move to specialised.
And other options are moved to restricted.
(Just an example of simple theming from alternate HQ set up.)

This was exactly the aspect of one unit changing the FoC I was pointing at, but instead of only special characters or HQ units affecting the rarity or status of units, certain build should be able to do so as well. One example of this in current play is Wraithguard counting as troops instead of elites when you take 10+spiritseer.

Lanrak wrote:Why tell you the fuction of a unit, NOT its comparative rarity?
The stats and weapons/equipment tell you the function already!

This is definitely true! I think that rarity is expressed to a degree in terms of the FoC limitations (i.e. 0-1, 0-2) but these limitations are not widespread through the current codeci. I recall in 2nd edition, the function of a unit was fairly obvious based on it's equipment and the "FoC' was simply a requirement to spend a certain amount of points on squads and no more than so many points of characters and allies. I would like to see something similar to this for allied, support, or reserves units but if the system is based on unit rarity I believe it would work better.

Lanrak wrote:Moveing units from/to 'standard/ specialised/ restricted' is less confusing than moving a unit through 'function titles' when the function doesnt change!IMO.

(One kid I know thought that BA assault marines couldnt use thier jump pack when taken as troops!)

TTFN
Lanrak.

In some cases, the function does change however - particularly when it applies to the rest of the list. A Ghost Warrior army uses wraithguard as troops - to the exclusion of almost all other troop types. The wraithguard are no longer "elites", but the backbone of the army... I agree that it's less confusing to change function titles, but they could still apply in a system based on rarity.

Hi .
Gavin Thorne.
I think we are talking at cross purposes a bit.We both appear to want the same thing, but mis understood each others descriptions a bit.

Rarity can be con troled by theme .In WH its core,(compulsory), special(limited,) and rare(very limited ) unit selections.

Number of units allowed is another method of limiting a force organisation.

EG a Venerable dreadnought could be 0-1.
Irrespective what FOC catagory its in, standard or specialised or restricted.You can only have up to ONE PER ARMY.

If standard units are the units that are commonly found in this type of army.

Specialised are the units that are not often found in this type of army.

Restricted are the units that are in so short suply, they very rarely appear in this type of army.

O-1 to 0-2 type restrictions are for the Unique and ultra rare units you hardly ever see!

This allows multiple themes to be constructed in a codex without 'fuction confusion'.

Rarity can be covers by 'how often they are seen in this army classifiacation'. standard, specialised, restricted.(Instead of troops,elites, FA/HS.)
And further restriction can be covered by 0-1 or 0-2.

Has that clarified things?
I am not too good at explaining myself sometimes.

TTFN
Lanrak.

I find the 40k system works well for its intended purpose, tactical games. It allows for forces specialized towards certain areas. A rarity system is unnecessary when you have point costs deciding how rare any given unit is.

How about taking the existing system and combining it with the whfb system. So when your armies get bigger, you get more access to special squads (hq,elite, fast and heavy).

I was thinking something in the line of:

0-1000 Points
have to take:
1 HQ
1 Troops
can take:
+ 1 Elite
+ 3 troops
+ 1 Fast
+ 1 Heavy
+ one of you choice (Hq, elite, fast, heavy)

1001-1500
have to take:
1 HQ
2 Troops
can take
+ 1 HQ
+ 2 Elite
+ 4 troops
+ 2 Fast
+ 2 Heavy
+ one of you choice

1501-2000
have to take:
1 HQ
3 troops
can take:
+ 1 HQ
+ 3 Elite
+ 5 troops
+ 3 Fast
+ 3 Heavy
+ one of your choice

etc.

What are your thoughts? Could need a little bit of tweaking of course, being just a brainstorm and all.

Greets
Schepp himself

@Lanrak: thank you for that explanation - I agree that we confused each other a bit!

@Iridiumstern: unfortunately, point costs don't strictly determine how rare a unit is. It does act as a force balancer (to a degree anyway): if you take several high cost units, the rest of your army is smaller by comparison to an army that takes no high cost units. You can still max out that supposedly rare unit, but your other options will be limited.

@Schepp: I don't play fantasy, but I'm familiar with the point value <=> unit availability system it uses. It looks like we're all talking about the same kind of change to the FoC concept, but the devil's in the details. I like the look of your system, but I also like Lanrak's idea of limiting special characters and rare units to certain point levels as well.

I feel that certain leaders/characters encourage a unit type/army build and that those kinds of units would be less rare or more standard. I also like the idea that some units go hand-in-hand with other units and so the availability of one affects the other.

The restriction Lanrak suggested were common in Fantasy as well until Gw decided to gimp those. And I agree with that!
For example, I want an army that has two venerable dreadnoughts because, well, my chapter has a lot of dreadnoughts! The 0-1 restriction is just that, restricting. Is a venerable dread in a 1000 point skirmish as rare as in a 2500 point game? I don't think so.
The current system encourages you to take the full 3 slots of whatever unit is the best in that slot. That works especially well when you play smaller games (3 Raider, 3 Monoliths, Nidzilla etc.). Therefore I think an escalating force organization system is the best (with a small amount of customization).

Greets
Schepp himself

I rather like the current FoC as it thematically resembles a modern TOE, but I do think it could do with an added selection for "support' units rather then seeing those shoe horned into elites and other categories (i.e. Techmarines and the like).

Jack

Hi Jackmojo.
The current F.O.C is supposed to be a summerised TOE.
However the catogarisation of units by function rather than rarity is the main problem
The units characteristics and equipment determine what role it plays on the battle field.
The FOC SHOULD point out 'thematic rarity'!

Schepp himself

If we look at the SM Chapter as a TOE.
There is ONE chapter master, ONE master of the forge etc.
These units ARE 0-1, no matter how big a game you play!

And at the level 40k is played 1500pts (very large skirmish) having a force with the chapter master master of the forge master of sacntitiy is just 'bobbins.'

If a chapter has few dreadnoughts as it is a recent founding , then thematic changes could simply restrict Dreadnoughts to a 0-2 or 0-1.

The point of 0-1 0r 0-2 restrictions is to re-enforce a particular theme.

General organisation based on rarity , Heroic HQ , HQ, standard,specialised, and restricted.Sets the general theme for a race.And scales to the size of the game.(3x as many restricted chioces at 3000pts than at 1000pts.)

For more specialised themes, (Klans, Craftworld, Chapters etc...) or in specialised instances the 0-1 or 0-2 super restrictions are used SPARINGLY!

TTFN
Lanrak.

The 40k FOC is designed for basic 1500-2000 pt games, and does OK for this.

Over 2500 pts, you play Apocalypse (which throws the whole thing out the window)

Up to 1000 pts, you play 40k/40m or Kill Team (which narrows things down to a Leader, Troops, and Specialists).

Playing odd sizes (e.g. 1250 or 2250) may not work quite right, but the FOC won't collapse.

Colour me ignorant for a second, but if there a reason why the scaling FOC present in Warhammer wouldn't work in 40K?

Hi H.M.B.C.
I proposed this in the thread already.(Just changed the names to fit 40k.)

The ONLY reason that 40k doesnt use WHFB method of choosing an army is because GW PLC want to make the 40k game different to WHFB.

And as WHFB seems to have arrived at the best ideas first, 40k just gets second best methods for so many things.
These are usualy disjointed abstractions that fuel the need for more abstractions....


(As the current game of 40k is SO FAR removed from WHFB, it realy should have its own set of game mechanics IMO.)

Are GW 40k game devs under the impression that other companies have 'copyrited' common sense , so they are not allowed to use it?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:The ONLY reason that 40k doesnt use WHFB method of choosing an army is because GW PLC want to make the 40k game different to WHFB.

And as WHFB seems to have arrived at the best ideas first, 40k just gets second best methods for so many things.

(As the current game of 40k is SO FAR removed from WHFB, it realy should have its own set of game mechanics IMO.)

Exactly right. The basic 40k FOC is designed to be different from WFB. 40k simply approaches scaling differently, with Apoc, 40k/40m, and Plantstrike using different FOCs. Also, back in 40k3, we had more missions with varying FOCs as well.

Given that 40k moved to a FOC structure before WFB, I think you have this backwards. 40k3 introduced the FOC as a replacement fro the 40k2/WFB5 % allocations. WFB6 revised this into the current Heroes/Core/Special/Rare afterwards. WFB6 was able to build upon the 40k3 FOC design to incorporate scaling, but the idea that it's necessarily "better" requires some seriously-tinted glasses.

If you haven't noticed, 40k *does* have it's own mechanics - when was the last time you declared charges, tested for Fear / Terror, calculated static CR, modified saves, or rolled an Artillery Die in 40k?

HI johnHwangDD.
Both games used % to start with.
Then 3rd ed 40k had the rushed 'unit by battle field role' idea.
WHFB took it to its logical conclusion of 'unit by rarity', to get themed forces in an easy way.
40k got left behind.(Again.)

So are you saying using WHFB game turn, to hit , to wound mechanics are the best game mechanics for 40k , even though the game genres are diametricaly opposite?

And the way 40k handles movement is better than WHFB straight movement rates with terrain modifiers?

And the True LOS firing restrictions that allows you to cause casualties on models out of LOS, is better than WHFBs standard LOS, and to hit modifiers for area cover.?

And what about the ID EW non sense, instead of WHFB basic multiple wound causing weapons /multiple wound creatures.?

Yes, 40k is becoming different to WHFB, purley by being far more abstract then is strictly necissary IMO.

Can you point out ANYTHING in the 40k rule set that has not got an exeption?

If you have got more exceptions than rules , something has gone terribly wrong IMO.

TTFN
Lanrak.

If you want to say WFB is better, I'll simply disagree. It's a personal preference thing.

AFAIC, given that GW games are little more than glorified B&P games, there's nothing inherently wrong with IgoUgo, nor with to-hit/to-wound/to-save. IgoUgo works great for mass battle. The hit/wound/save mechanic is similarly adequate.

Unquestionably, 40k movement is better than WFB. WFB has this level of pretend precision that is pure and utter BS. 40k allows units to engage and reposition much more rapidly than WFB - the game is much more fluid.

Given that WFB casualties are taken from the rear of the formation, I have no idea what you're complaining about WRT 40k TLoS. As far as area cover goes, both games have this, but handle it differently, with WFB opting to greatly reduce shooting effectiveness.

I'm assuming you're talking about WFB's Killing Blow and the issues there?

Can you point to anything in the WFB ruleset that doesn't have an exception? Do you have to use more than DoC and VC to complete the list?

Exceptions are fine - unlike WFB, 40k still maintains some semblance of balance, such that ancient rulebooks like Dark Eldar are still playable. Can't say the same about Beasts, tho.

The fact that Dark Eldar are still playable is more of a fluke or happy accident than by any real design.

And 40K doesn't retain balance any more than Fantasy does. They're both inherently and deeply flawed games written by people who don't consider what they have previously written when writing a new Codex, and often do things for arbitrary or model-selling reasons.

John-
The core rules for WFB are much better than the core rules for W40k.

The actual problem for WFB is the overpowered army books, not the core rules.

@Vlad: Oh, there's no doubt that the core problem with WFB lies with GW really pushing "Codex Creep" as their current strategy with the new Army Books.

But the idea that WFB's chocolate is actually "better" than 40k's mint is nonsense. 40k as a few minor oddities, and nearly everything Lanrak whined about were preference issues. WFB core rules have J-charges and clipping and all sorts of other BS that have nothing to do with any Army book, and are inherent to the rule.

Hi JohnHwangDD.
Perhaps I did not make my point very clearly.
WHFB had its rules specificaly written for the game play of WHFB.
The core rules have fewer exeptions to cover basic game play, and tend to follow a more intuitive path.(Most balance issues in WHFB are down to poor balancing of armies, NOT poor basic rules.)
WHFB has 10 specific 'special rules' in the rules book.(And one or two, specific 'race' rules usualy.Total special rules in WH appx 25)
(I prefer to play AoA, as this is a much better rule set than GWs WHFB.IMO.)

The point I was trying to make is 40k RT shared the WHFB 3rd ed rules ,with slight modifications.
2nd ed modified these rules further and added more detail to the now established 40k background.

3rd ed was a very inexpertly handled simplification of the modified WHFB rules.(A complete hatchet job IMO.)
From this point on WHFB has recieved the best methods to utilise its game mechanics.
And 40k got stuck with the abstracted -or darn right stupid rules.

40k is still using heavily modified WHFB game mechanics and rules.
And tends to be stuck with the half assed poorly though out ideas.
This is why 40k has 22 USRs , and a big mess of race -unit specific special rules!Appx 50+ special rules in total)And need an entirley seperate section with different game mechanics to cover vehicles !

The rules for golf work realy well for golf.
If some one used the rules of golf to cover foot ball, (with heavy modification),they would not be as good as rules for foot ball written with football in mind!

The rules rof WHFB work fine for WHFB, but they do NOT work that well for the current game of 40k.

Why not use the best methods across both games when apropriate?
Simply giving 40k the 'abstract option, because they can, hardly seems fair , does it?

I would prefer GW to write a rule set specificaly for 40k.(The same as Andy Chambers wanted to.)

I was moaning about my favorite background, (40k, ) being stuck in the shallow end of GW game development , (with the slight smell of incontenent children.)

Happy gaming,
Lanrak.

Personally I dont think the foc is ever a limiting factor since both sides are limited in the same way. If the limits never existed then you could have an entire army of dreds, but so could your opponent so does it really matter. To win a game you need a balamced army and the foc helps you make one. If you play against someone who uses 3 bassilisks or some other think like that then there is nothing to stop you doing the same thing back to them like taking 3 landraiders to take out the bassilisks! The 5th edition rules means that only troops can capture objectives so armies with the minimum amount of troops are now less effective (although they do intimidate your opponent!)

I think it would be better if FOC's differentiated between armies (not just races) sort of like how the old CSM worked. The FOC is a good starting ground, but I don't think limiting certain types of weapons or limiting how many units will help at all.

Briancj wrote:I'll put this here, because it is a rules change.

Given:

1) The current Force Org Chart allows for up to three slots per Special Unit Type (Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy).

2) The current 'thought process' appears to be:
"One is useless, two is effectively one, three is overpowered."
(IE: 3 Wraithlords, 3 Falcons, 3 Basilisks, etc. etc.)

Does there need to be a change to the Force Org Chart?

I've considered the following:

1) Remove 1 from all Special unit slots (2 Elite, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Heavy).

2) Declare that you can never take more than 2 of a specific Codex Entry.

Thoughts?

--Brian

It's only a problem with armies that actually have some great choices.

Any army without good Troops choices is unfairly penalised by your idea 1.
Any army without several good non-Troops choices is unfairly penalised by your idea 2.

As a Tau owner I always think of Tau.

They only have two Elite choices.

They've got four fast attack choices but one is pants (Vespids) and another is highly specialist (Pathfinders) and more or less determines one of the Heavy choices (Skyray.)

They've only got four Heavy choices, Hammerhead, Broadsides, Skyray or Sniper Drones (which are fairly pants.)

It's not that bad but there are certainly other codexes with better selections.

I would like to hear the argument why an escalating FOC is a bad idea. The argument until now mainly consisted of "fantasy already have it and 40k is different" if I understand correctly.

Greets
Schepp himself

And when you consider it that's not really an argument...

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
This is another prime example of the better idea already being used for WH, so 40k gets 'something crap' because it 'has to be different'.

IF 40k force organisation was re-structured to follow WH system.

Unit Types.

Heroic HQ.(Rare HQs Special characters etc.)
HQ.
Standard units.(The most common type of units found in this army.)
Specialised units.(The more limited unit types with highly specialised battle field role.)
Restricted units.( The very limited units due to high demand, that cover an armies 'themed weakness'.)

An army MUST include one HQ and a minimum of 2 standard units.

For every 500pts you may add an aditional HQ.
For every 1500 pts you may swap an HQ for an heroic HQ.

For every 1000pts, you must include 2minimum standard units.
For every 500pts you may include up to one specilised unit
For every 1000pts you may unclude up to one restricted unit.

For a 1500 pt game ,;-
You MUST include one HQ,
You may have up to 3 HQs, one of which may be swapped for a Heroic HQ.
You must include at least 2 standard units.
You may have up to 3 specialised units
You may have up to one restricted unit.

This means units can be classified by rarity NOT function.
EG SM assault marines could be standard , specialised or restricted unit ,dependant on what army they are in.Even though their function is ALWAYS 'fast attack.'

(Why do GW feel it necisary to use nosensical options for 40k just to be different to WH, when most of the game mechanics are used in both games?)

TTFN
Lanrak.

TBH, that seems an incredibly complex set of rules.

Though I appreciate that it's a much more rounded way of building an army, I much prefer the simplicity of the FOC.

Minor point, but Rogue Trader was a WFB 2nd Ed derivative, not 3rd Ed.

Hi ArbitorIan.
If the unit composition is presented as a table , (as in whfb,) then you just run your finger across from the PV band you are playing to see the maxumum/minimum units you can select in each catagory.

Fifty, I meant that WHFB rules and RT rules were practicaly identical, both being developed from WHFB 2nd ed.(I typed it wrong in my previous post, thanks for the correction.)

TTFN
lanrak.

Schepp himself wrote:I would like to hear the argument why an escalating FOC is a bad idea. The argument until now mainly consisted of "fantasy already have it and 40k is different" if I understand correctly.

Greets
Schepp himself

It's not a bad idea in itself.

It has the disadvantage of more complexity but us intelligent Dakkites could cope with that.

My objection is not about the new force chart it's about the unfortunate limitations of some armies, which is the fault of GW's codexes.

Killkrazy,

It might look a little more complex at first glance, but it is actually incredibly simple. To illustrate, lets call the categories HQ, Troops, Support and Elite.

Points HQ Troops Support Elite
0-1000 1 2+ 0-2 0-1
1001-2000 1-2 3+ 0-4 0-2
2001-3000 1-3 4+ 0-6 0-3

All a player has to do is identify the appropriate points level, slide over the bar and he will have the appropriately scaled force org chart for the points value he is playing. So in a 1500 point army, a player would have to include a minimum of 1 HQ and 3 troops and may include up to 1 more HQ choice, 4 support choices, 2 elite choices and as many additional troop choices as he wanted to. You also have the ability to customize the org chart for individual armies with their codexes without unduly upsetting the game balance. For example, if you wanted the IG army as a whole to have more of the hoard army look, you could up the minimum troop slots per bracket by 1. Similiarly, armies could be given reduced troops requirements and greater access to support and elite choices like the High Elves in fantasy have.

Here's a simple thought:

You can only have a number of EACH of the "other" FoC slots equal to Troops choices -1.

So if you have 2 Troops, you may only have one each of Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support.

Seems like a decent balancing factor. Also, you may not spend more points in the alternate choices than you spend on Troop choices.

PanzerLeader wrote:Killkrazy,

It might look a little more complex at first glance, but it is actually incredibly simple. To illustrate, lets call the categories HQ, Troops, Support and Elite.

...
...

I know it's simple, it's just that GW got rid of VPs in favour of KPs because they were afraid users find it too hard to count up beyond 100.

To me, your scheme looks like it would exceed the GW duh? factor.

Killkrazy,

I hope it doesn't exceed the GW duh? factor since I ripped it right out of WHFB with new names for Heroes, Core, Special and Rare. I also wouldn't mind either a revamped KP system that differentiates between the relative values of units or a return to the Victory Point system. But I do have to admit that the KP system does a good job of balancing the different armies that have an advantage in objective missions by disadvantaging them in KP battles.

@Mattlov: Only Skaven had the "Mainstay" rule out of all 40k & WFB armies, and rumor has it that they're losing it in the coming Army Book, so I don't think this is a great rule.

40k already has the Troops = Scoring, and people while about that plenty enough. Tying non-Troops to Troops would only drive more nerdrage than what we currently have.

Also, there's the issue of not all Codices having CSM-quality Troops to leverge...

I like the 40k Foc, It fits the game. WFB is at least an attempt at an actual wargame. Does anybody think a block of orc boys is actually only 30 orcs? No, it's an abstraction. An army in fantasy represents just that: an army. Field armies throughout history have relied on what's available rather than the perfect tool for the job.

40k is still a skirmish game. It represents a hand picked force sent to a crucial point on the battle field to accomplish a specific goal, not just to defeat a full field army. Having access to more specialized and rare units makes sense.

That's why I don't think scaling is a big factor in 40k. Aside from very small games (under 600pts) which use the combat patrol rules and large games (over 3000) which use apoc, I think the current FoC works well. No army seems overly hurt by the Ard boys points level, that wasnt' weak sauce before.

One reason for the limitation on specials and Rares is that in fantasy is that many of those units have huge damage potential. there is nothing in 40k as nasty as Terror, for example. Why would orcs even show up if the enemey can take 8 terror causing units? Warmachines, while less reliable, have huge upsides. a 100pts great cannon in a defilade shot can wipe out rank of knights. You start allowing too many rolls of the dice, and it becomes unlikely that many armies can compete.

This seems to be a solution (or solutions) in search of a problem.

LMoE

Hi,
This seems to be a solution (or solutions) in search of a problem.

LMoE

If you want to look for problems,the 40k rule set is a target rich environment!
Lanrak.

I like the idea of race specific force organisation charts. Lots of troops and heavy support for the imperial guard ect.

I do think that their should be less emphasis on characters and more on smaller games where tactics flow back and forth as opposed to game where youre opponent gets three leman russes and flattens you, although saying that i did play a game on a 4x4 board [mechanised guard versus space marines with lascannons] the upshot of it was, while attempted too pincer them, they filled the two russes and one salamander with lascannon fire to the side armour and shot the chimera up with bolter fire :( before moving through the debris and slaughtering the survivors. i was not impressed but thats how it can go

I do think that their should be less emphasis on characters and more on smaller games where tactics flow back and forth as opposed to game where youre opponent gets three leman russes and flattens you, although saying that i did play a game on a 4x4 board [mechanised guard versus space marines with lascannons] the upshot of it was, while attempted too pincer them, they filled the two russes and one salamander with lascannon fire to the side armour and shot the chimera up with bolter fire :( before moving through the debris and slaughtering the survivors. i was not impressed but thats how it can go

I think that would be a healthy direction for 40K to move towards. I would like to see characters assume more of the role they have in WHFB where they can change the game when properly supported, but are not capable of carrying the Army's load by themselves. I think we are about halfway there and some of the new special characters adding buffs to units seems to be a step in the right direction. I would like to see GW take the next step and further reduce the role (and points cost) of heroes and encourage the use of additional squads. I like the way 40K plays as a much more fluid game then Fantasy and I think a few simple rule changes to represent suppressive fires (i.e. units that are suppressed may not move the next turn, but may shoot as normal) would make it a more realistic and arguably different game from Fantasy but keep alot of the features we like.

Shepp’s and Panzer’s basic idea has been an obvious and simple fix pretty much since WH 6th ed came out. I’ve been advocating it for years.

At low point levels, multiple Monoliths/Land Raiders/similar very tough unit are harder to deal with. The scaling Force Org idea, as well as the now-out of print Combat Patrol and 40k in 40 min rules all are similar ways to adjust for this. At higher levels, the power of said tough units is more diluted, though there isn’t presently any formal system to account for that.

A scaling force org chart has the benefit of retaining the existing balance in the “standard” 1500-1850 range, and makes the necessary modifications for 500, 1000, 2000 and 2500pt games. It expands the “sweet spot” for 40k balance (as much as one exists presently) to any size game up to 3k, where Apoc can take over. Simple and effective. Long overdue.

Mannahnin wrote:At low point levels, multiple Monoliths/Land Raiders/similar very tough unit are harder to deal with. The scaling Force Org idea, as well as the now-out of print Combat Patrol and 40k in 40 min rules all are similar ways to adjust for this.

At higher levels, the power of said tough units is more diluted, though there isn’t presently any formal system to account for that.

At low points, as you note, you play 40k/40m or Combat Patrol, at which point Monoliths and Land Raiders are verboten, so not a problem.

At high points, you play Apoc as the formal system, and likely restructure large portions of the force using Apoc Datasheets.

Scaling FOC isn't needed because the regular FOC works for regular games, and simply isn't used in the really small or really large games.


Also, amusingly, many WFB armies at 3k are actually smaller than at 2k, due to the extra Hero / Rare / Special slots to take points...

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:At low point levels, multiple Monoliths/Land Raiders/similar very tough unit are harder to deal with. The scaling Force Org idea, as well as the now-out of print Combat Patrol and 40k in 40 min rules all are similar ways to adjust for this.

At higher levels, the power of said tough units is more diluted, though there isn’t presently any formal system to account for that.

At low points, as you note, you play 40k/40m or Combat Patrol, at which point Monoliths and Land Raiders are verboten, so not a problem.

At high points, you play Apoc as the formal system, and likely restructure large portions of the force using Apoc Datasheets.

Scaling FOC isn't needed because the regular FOC works for regular games, and simply isn't used in the really small or really large games.


Also, amusingly, many WFB armies at 3k are actually smaller than at 2k, due to the extra Hero / Rare / Special slots to take points...

And this argument is invalid when you consider the 1000-2000 point range and that apoc is not really a game which is designed for competitive/semi-competitive gaming (I know, shocking but true!)

At 1250 points, MCs and tanks and are harder to kill (as mannahin said), but in the 1500 or 1750 range it becomes far easier to defeat them. So I don't understand how Combat patrol can help here.

Greets
Schepp himself

At low points, as you note, you play 40k/40m or Combat Patrol, at which point Monoliths and Land Raiders are verboten, so not a problem.

At high points, you play Apoc as the formal system, and likely restructure large portions of the force using Apoc Datasheets.

Scaling FOC isn't needed because the regular FOC works for regular games, and simply isn't used in the really small or really large games.


Also, amusingly, many WFB armies at 3k are actually smaller than at 2k, due to the extra Hero / Rare / Special slots to take points...

Schep and Mannnahnin hit the important points dead on. Two land raiders in a 1000 point army is incredibly tough to beat. There are only so many ways to squeeze anti-tank weapons into so low a point level and still build a balanced, competitive army. You can really still play decent 40K games at up to about 3500 points before you need to switch to Apoc, but a FOC fills quickly at that point level. You would be better off with a scaling force org chart that automatically adjusted to the points value because it would allow you to play standard high point missions or Apoc missions as you wanted too.

And the salient point you're missing about WHFB at 3K is that the minimum core did go up and now players have to make trade-offs just like in 40K. Do I expand upon my core army from a lower points value or do I drop filler units to free up points for more expensive units that I can now afford? Its no different than a player choosing to drop attack bikes from his 1500 point list to add a killer unit of terminators at 1750.

The problem is that at 1000pts, there really is no good way to build an FOC that's truly fair, and elminates the problem. How many codexes can still take land raiders as dedicated transports for an elite? And ork army can take a battle wagon as a heavy, one as a troop, and one at elite.

1000pts is just not a good level of play for 40k, at least not without gentlemanly lists. Bump to 1500, and then you've got far less excuse.

In WFB, most armies have access to a cheap core unit that can claim objectives, or hold a flank, etc. In 40k, troops are required to actually win the game 2/3 of the time, and two landraiders, plus an HQ, in 1000pts doesn't leave much room for troops and other stuff. It's an unbalanced list, but it's not a good list.

Combat Patrol / 40k/40m rules should be used for 1000 pts, not the full FOC. And under those rules, AV 14/13+/10+ vehicles simply aren't allowed, so the problem simply goes away.

It's also not terribly hard to make some house rules for 1000pts. It's not really a standard, so if you're playing it it's with friends.

And the gentlemanly solution works, too.

The present force org doesn't properly serve games under ~1250 or in the 2k-3k range.

Combat Patrol and 40k in 40 min, as previously pointed out, are out of print, and don't always work anyway. CSM don't have any 2 wound HQs anymore, for one example. Apoc is a decent system for non-competive games once you get up over the 3k mark. A scaling force org chart does what's necessary with fewer words, in the core book.

Brevity is the soul of wit, clean design is usually good design.

Hence, the simplicity of not bothering with a variable FOC. Keeps It Simple.

"Make it as simple as possible but no simpler." The WH system works better. So modify and adopt it. Step 3: profit!

Wot was 40k in 40 minutes? And can you still play combat patrols?

"40k in 40 minutes" is the predecessor to "Combat Patrol". It's small-scale 40k with a number of restrictions due to the shift in scale.

the rules for WHFB are way better, the force org chart is something I really did not like about 40k, but it does help only having to memorize one instead of one for each 1000 pt teir

Lanrak wrote:
And the True LOS firing restrictions that allows you to cause casualties on models out of LOS, is better than WHFBs standard LOS, and to hit modifiers for area cover?

Agreed. Although the game itself is an abstraction...the less abstraction within the abstraction...the better, in my opinion.

In that case, the game should be a sim skirmish of perhaps a dozen or two models per side using 1:1 ground scale.

JohnHwangDD wrote:In that case, the game should be a sim skirmish of perhaps a dozen or two models per side using 1:1 ground scale.

You understood my point. Why act as if you didn't?

On your side note though: if 40k "reenactment" (what exactly would you call that?) could be possibly done...man, I'd have one heck of a new hobby.

Huh? De-abstracting means you're moving to simulation.

The problem with nearly all wargames is that simulation completely fails WRT ground scale, which is especially bad for firing ranges and scaled movement.

I really like the force org chart! However I'd love to see more armies be able to "manipulate" the chart to suit their specific needs. For example;

An IG player who takes X (being an HQ, I dunno any of theirs off hand so I can't name one) as an HQ choice may swap 2 Fast Attack slots for 1 additional Heavy Support slot. This must be announced prior to deployment. You may choose not to use this rule.

Something like that. I think every army should be allowed to take certain HQ's that allow swapping out certain parts of our force org to benefit others. So like Nids may swap out elite slots to get more troops perhaps, or chaos could swap out fast attack or troop choices to gain additional elite choices or something.

As it stands I think the FOC is fine, I just hate that some armys have certain "weak" slots that you never fill. I think it'd be neat to be able to trade em for something you might actually USE!

JohnHwangDD wrote:Huh? De-abstracting means you're moving to simulation.

The problem with nearly all wargames is that simulation completely fails WRT ground scale, which is especially bad for firing ranges and scaled movement.

I meant deabstracing in the sense of, if using TLOS, it is still strange that units out of sight can be killed, and so on.

Hi,
JohnHwangDD,what exactly did you mean in your quote?

'Huh? De-abstracting means you're moving to simulation.

The problem with nearly all wargames is that simulation completely fails WRT ground scale, which is especially bad for firing ranges and scaled movement.'

Are you saying ...
Because 40k uses grossly disproportionate vertical and horisontal scales it HAS to have overly (and totaly unecissarily ) abstract rules?

Or that the discrepency in vertical and ground scale in ALL simulation type wargames ,is SO detracting its impossible to enjoy the game?

Could you explain further please?
Its just in my experiance most prefer straightforward intuitive rules to a mess of abstractions, and discrepencies in horisontal and vertical scales are not an issue if they are scaled proportionatley.

TTFN
lanrak.

Zid wrote:I really like the force org chart! However I'd love to see more armies be able to "manipulate" the chart to suit their specific needs. For example;

An IG player who takes X (being an HQ, I dunno any of theirs off hand so I can't name one) as an HQ choice may swap 2 Fast Attack slots for 1 additional Heavy Support slot. This must be announced prior to deployment. You may choose not to use this rule.

Something like that. I think every army should be allowed to take certain HQ's that allow swapping out certain parts of our force org to benefit others. So like Nids may swap out elite slots to get more troops perhaps, or chaos could swap out fast attack or troop choices to gain additional elite choices or something.

As it stands I think the FOC is fine, I just hate that some armys have certain "weak" slots that you never fill. I think it'd be neat to be able to trade em for something you might actually USE!

Instead of creating the system you have, Special Characters exist that allow specific units (ex: Sternguard with Pedro Kantor), to fill multiple roles (Sternguard become scoring units), or even count as alternate Force Org units (Dark Eldar have a special character that allows Wych squads to become Troops instead of Elites).

Hi Lanrak:

In any game, the designer makes a decision to either simulate or abstract a given element that is included (the also have the option of simply ignoring something).

In my case, I look at 40k as more of a board game, rather than a simulation because the scales and modeling are so far off from anything reality. So I'm willing to give 40k a lot of slack as far as abstracting things.

I think it is more appropriate for a non-realistic game to use abstracted rules, and more appropriate for a realistic game to use more simulationist rules.

To try and introduce strongly simulationist elements in what is otherwise heavily-abstracted causes a disconnect. It raises the question "why *this* instead of *that*".

A good example of this is TLOS - 40k doesn't need TLOS, and I was perfectly happy playing Magic Cylinder on a 2-D board with height levels. But as it's a *minis* wargame rather than a true board game, and TLOS removes some arguments, I'm OK with it.

So, getting back to the FOC, it's an abstraction of a TOE / OOB, so I don't have a problem with it. It's a good starting place that covers all "normal" games. Is it perfect, no. But when I play something much smaller, or much larger, there are different rules (or lack thereof), so it works out. Trying to tie FOC to a hard TOE / OOB simply isn't in the nature of a game like 40k which deliberately introduces a lot of room for player tailoring.

Hope this helps,

/John

Che-Vito wrote:

Zid wrote:I really like the force org chart! However I'd love to see more armies be able to "manipulate" the chart to suit their specific needs. For example;

An IG player who takes X (being an HQ, I dunno any of theirs off hand so I can't name one) as an HQ choice may swap 2 Fast Attack slots for 1 additional Heavy Support slot. This must be announced prior to deployment. You may choose not to use this rule.

Something like that. I think every army should be allowed to take certain HQ's that allow swapping out certain parts of our force org to benefit others. So like Nids may swap out elite slots to get more troops perhaps, or chaos could swap out fast attack or troop choices to gain additional elite choices or something.

As it stands I think the FOC is fine, I just hate that some armys have certain "weak" slots that you never fill. I think it'd be neat to be able to trade em for something you might actually USE!

Instead of creating the system you have, Special Characters exist that allow specific units (ex: Sternguard with Pedro Kantor), to fill multiple roles (Sternguard become scoring units), or even count as alternate Force Org units (Dark Eldar have a special character that allows Wych squads to become Troops instead of Elites).

Yeah, that works too HQ's modifying troop types and things makes sense (like a chaos Termi lord making 1 unit of termis a troop choice would make sense, for example). I just hate how restrictive the FOC is sometimes, especially when certain slots for certain armys are pretty damn useless

Hi JohnHwangDD.
Thanks for clarifying.
ALL table top wargames have to abstract things to a certain level.
However there are ways of keeping these absractions to simulate the players expectations.These tend to more intuitive.

I agree that 40k rules are written with heavy counter intuitive abstractions .And that any simple simulations look out of place in the rules.

The point I was trying to make was because the current FOC uses unit function to classifiy unit rarity , rather than actual unit rarity irrespective of function, the current FOC is MORE restrictive !
And can cause confusion!(When assault marines are taken as troops chioces can they use thier jump packs? etc...)

If there is a simpler more effective way to cover a function of a system ,to decide NOT to use it because its already in use in another company game is a bit counter productive.IMO.

The system used in WHFB is more straight forward and scaleable .
Therfore I belive it to be a better system to use than the one currently used by 40k.

Both are abstractions of a TO&E, but the WHFB system allows more options of configuration and player chioce.
(As its ONLY changes rarity in an army not fuctional decriptors.And alot of the 40k armies are more biased to singlular fuction,eg 'shooty' or 'assaulty '.)

I belive we both agree there are better methods, its just you dont see the need to change , where as I do.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Yeah. Tho there is a big difference due to technology / scale. 40k is a post-industrial game, so it's not like there's a manually-countable number Leman Russ tanks on the planet. It's not like Carnifexes are individually hatched rarely.

40k stuff appears on a forgeworld / hive world / craftworld / hive fleet / waagh scale. The numbers are vast, so a hundred men / bugs / fungi with a dozen tanks / beasts / constructs is a very small number.

If you say that a Waagh has a million Boyz, and Ard Boyz are very rare (1%), that's 10,000 Ard Boyz - plenty more than in a 40k engagement.

Fantasy models historical *European* warfare - not Asian warfare. So the numbers are relatively tiny and insignificant. Rare in those circumstances is still quite small, but even then, we find the Masque, Changeling and the Blue Scribes at nearly every Daemonic assault. Dragons and unbreakable War Engines are everywhere.

So, while the idea that things should be more limited isn't bad, I'm not sure that we're seeing it on the tabletop in a way that the game has evolved to accept.

Hi, JohnHwangDD.
It is not important how vast the total numbers are, in the background.
As it just like moveing up the command size of the TO&E.
Battalion -Regimental-Corps-Army etc.

EG if we assume a IG initial planet invasion force...
6 Infantry regiments,(full strenght appx 60,000 men.)2 artillery regiments(1000 guns), 5 tank battalions, ( full strenght 250 tanks,)etc.
The basic proportions of infantry-artillery -tanks is fixed.

So the proportion of units available to any size engagment is fixed.
In battles the unit types are mixed for mutual support.This gives the proportions that would be found in a 'standard engagment'.
This determines the basic proportions each type of unit can be used in a 'game army'.

The FOC should also concider the effects on game play.(An all tank-artillery force may not not be much fun to play-play against.)

My points are ..
Proportional representation in game SHOULD be scalable.
And balancing a game based on unit function is overly restrictive at the basic level.

TTFN
Lanrak.

And doesn't the FOC solve that by requiring Troops which aren't tanks/artillery?

Which would be the same whether you called them Core and reshuffled tanks/artillery as Special / Rare.

Yes, but the scaleable FOC makes players choose between two or more units and helps balance the game better at lower points values. For example, at 1500 points an IG player might have to choose between fielding either a Leman Russ Squadron or an Ordnance Battery because both of them would occupy his one rare slot. Now the rest of the list becomes more important because he has to make the concious trade off between direct and indirect fire in his rare slot. Again, just an example. It wouldn't take alot of work to tweak the different codices accordingly and I think it would help greatly balance the game across the board.

Here is a sample army breakdown.

Marine HQ

Chapter Master
Captain
Librarian
Chaplain
Master of Forge

Marine Core

Tactical Squad
Scout Squad

Marine Support
Assault Squad (count as "Core" if Army includes Captain with Jump Pack)
Bike Squadron (count as "Core" if Army includes Captain with Bike)
Scout Bike Squadron (count as "Core" if Army includes Captain with Bike)
Devestator Squad
Predator Squadron (includes Destructors, Annihilators, Vindicators)
Thunderfire Cannon
Tech Marine
Whirlwind
Attack Bike Squadrons
Landspeeder Squadrons
Dreadnoughts

Marine Elites
Terminator Squad
Assault Terminator Squad
Land Raiders

Remove Option to buy Land Raiders as dedicated transports

Now, I only took about ten minutes to type that out and think it through quickly. But I think that using the WHFB model as a base, you can see how it simultaneously makes people use more troop choices but also opens up lots of alternative builds. At less than 2000 points, a Space Marine player would have to choose between Terminators or a Land Raider. He would also have to make concious choices between mobile support choices or more static, but more shooty, support choices. It would also open up alot of army builds as a BA successor chapter could take a captain with a jumppack and then fill his core assault squads and make an all jump pack army.

So the problem with the 40k FOC is that 40k Support is split into Heavy and Fast?

No. The problem with the 40K force org chart is that it does not scale well to lower levels and that units that are supposed to be limited or game changing can be bought outside the force org chart. A Marine force can effectively have 4+ heavy support choices by purchasing a LR as a dedicated transport to supplement the three Predators bought out of the heavy choices.

And this is different from WFB all-cav Brets / Flying Circus / 6 WM Skaven / multi-Steg LM in what way?

*sigh*

Guys, you can't talk to a wall. John is intractable and he just doesn't 'get it' - a dangerous and frustrating combination if ever there was one.

I think a scaling FoC would be great for 40K. In fact, it's something we've been experimenting with in Revisited. So far it's only with Eldar, Orks and Tyranids, but so far the idea works pretty well. The more of one unit category type you bring, the more access you have to another category type, and then the more of that one you bring, the greater your access to even better stuff.

With the Eldar one, the most developed of the three so far, it scales all the way up to Apoc. The list allows for Revenant Titans and Scorpions and things like that without any special detachment rules or points requirements - you just have to bring the right amount of pre-requisites. Our aim is to have this work for all armies.

And the other great benefit here is that it allows armies to have their structure based in the fluff - Ork Warbands, Chaos Cults, the regimented structure of the Guard, actual Marine armies following the Codex, non-Codex Chapters, Eldar structure - rather than attempting to shoe-horn everything into the 2HQ/3Elite/6Troops/3FA/3HS system.

Hi all.
JohnHwangDD.
The difference is;-
WHFB has a good systems that have annomalies due to poor implementation by the dev team.(Human error.)

40k has annomalies because it has inferior* systems, and no matter what the dev team does it can not reach its full potential.(System error.)

Is this clear enough?
(*Functional efficiency of systems is NOT based on opinoin , but on measurable performance .)

TTFN
Lanrak.

i think 2nd edition had it right

manditory 25% of points on troops

up to 25% of allies, heavy, fat, hq, etc.

Percentages hurt some armies more than others. Some armies have really expensive troops (Deathwing). Some don't (Tau).

@Lanrak: if you say it's measurable (which I doubt), rather thanpure opinion (which I believe to be the case), please share...

And note: "I think WFB is twice as good as 40k" isn't a valid response!

Hi JohnHwangDD.
If you look at each system as an equasion of 'level of complication, vs complexity of function'.
Eg how easy the system is to understand vs how much stuff it covers.

Both methods are quite simple, current FOC has a 1 flow chart type diagram.
The WHFB option has a table, pv vs selections available.
Both take up the same num,ber of pages and are straight forward to explain and understand.

The current FOC only is effective at a set game size ,(1500 to 2000pts) as it fixes units to maximums of 2,6,3,3,3.
Any change in game size or special compositions need extra rules and explanations.

The WHFB scales to ANY game size, and special compositions are covered by the basic sytem as units simply become more or less rare.(You dont have to expand the number of 'slots', or re-brand unit function artificialy.)

The WHFB system covers more complexity at the same level of complication,therfore it is a more efficient system.

Oppinion is just which system you prefer.It doesnt make any difference to which system is more efficient .

Art is its own justification.The desire to create is all that is needed.
Systems are functional, they have measurable levels of efficiency.

Unfortunatley far to many people at GW towers think game development is an art form, and so by extension do not need any justification beyond thier own opinion.

Game systems ARE functional , and therefore NOT an art form.

TTFN
Lanrak.

I think that unless you are playing a serious game or a tornament you might as well use whatever troops you want. If your playing a game with your mates its more fun to use your recently painted models or just the ones you like to use. It wouldnt overbalance the game because if you exploited the fact you could have an army made of just assasins for example noone will want to play you and you wont have any mates left.

Lanrak wrote:Eg how easy the system is to understand vs how much stuff it covers.

The current FOC only is effective at a set game size ,(1500 to 2000pts) as it fixes units to maximums of 2,6,3,3,3.
Any change in game size or special compositions need extra rules and explanations.

The WHFB scales to ANY game size,

It doesnt make any difference to which system is more efficient .

Well, let's talk about what's actually played.

40k plays primarily at two game sizes: 1500-2000, and 2500+. The FOC covers the 1500-2000 situation (and then some), and Apoc throwing the FOC completely out the window covers 2500+. Technically, the FOC covers up to 2500 pts, even 4,000 or 5,000 pts. It just does a less effective job below 1000 pts, or above 3000 pts. But to say that it doesn't cover is using an opinion based on personal judgement. For the games that are typically played, the 40k FOC works adequately, because that is what it is designed to do.

Now, let's talk about WFB. Here, the rules theoretically cover an arbitrarily large game size, however, this also has oddities and problem, whereby WFB isn't entirely effective. There are big steps in power and playability between 1999 vs 2000, or 2999 vs 3000. These aren't smooth or graduated transitions, and so the effectiveness suffers. And it's not uncommon for a 3k list to have fewer models and less core than a 2k list. This is why many WFB Comp systems use a points minimum / maximum above and beyond the basic slot count. But from a practical standpoint, WFB is equally narrow in application, focusing on games of 2000 to 2500 pts, which is effectively the same mono-FOC situation that 40k has.

So when you talk about efficiency, they're the same, using about the same amount of text to cover the same +/-250pt game sizes, but with 40k Apoc covering large games with even greater efficiency by not bothering with specific rules.


BTW, you're not going to claim that GW went through the trouble of playtesting the WFB FOC chart at all of the various game sizes, for the various armies, are you? That the game is as well-balanced for games in every range, are you?

IME of the last ten years, the sliding FOC chart for WHFB does appear to have been tested, and does work better at the less-common point sizes of 1000 & 2500 than does the 40k chart at 1000 and 2500.

Hi again.
JohnHwangDD.
By your own admission the 40k FOC fails to cover game sizes less than 1000pts or over 2500 pts that well.Yet the WHFB does better across all PV size games.(Wether by design or pure luck.)
Therfore the WHFB covers more than 40k system , ergo it is more efficient.

Also you ignored the problems cause by limited number 'slots ' not covering some composition options.And the possiblities of confusion caused by function based nomenclature for limiting composition.

You like 'everything 40k' because that your opinion and you are entitled to it.

But PLEASE do not put you opinions down as a valid argument to oppose factual conclusions on fuctional efficiency.

TTFN
Lanrak.

@Mannahnin: "better" is highly arguable. All it does is shift power balance around, and you'll have a difficult time "proving" that the WFB shift is "better" than the equivalent 40k shift.
____

@Lanrak: I didn't say it fails to cover - the basic 40k FOC can be played with as few as 500 pts, or over 3000 pts. However, at very small or large sizes, the balance changes. It is different, in the same way that the WFB balance is different. But to say that it doesn't work is patently false, and I certainly made no such claim. I said it was less efficient, which means that it works, but works differently. And certainly, it's no worse than how WFB changes power at different point levels.

I don't see these as problems. But if you see it as a problem, how do you explain how non-Core Specials can be taken as Core? Doesn't that present just as much of a nomenclature problem for the overly-literal simple-minded?

I don't like everything 40k, but the FOC isn't something that causes problems, because where the 40k FOC starts to show issues, it gets thrown out for Apoc, or is replaced for very small games. There are other issues that are far more pressing.

As for factual conclusions about efficiency, your argument holds no water.

If the WFB FOC works so well, why did GW make special rules for <1000 pt games of WFB? Why is that? Surely, if the WFB system is so good, they would just use the basic system as-is, and not apply any other restrictions.

Hi JohnHwangDD.
You may have mis read my post.
I said
'By your own admission the 40k FOC fails to cover game sizes less than 1000pts or over 2500 pts that well.Yet the WHFB does better across all PV size games.'
I simply pointed out compard to other systems 40k FOC was not that efficient at other game sizes.

You said,'
'I said it was less efficient, which means that it works, but works differently. And certainly, it's no worse than how WFB changes power at different point levels.'

So you agree with me that 40ks FOC IS less efficent than WHFBs system.

As a basic systyem (irrespective of how GW devs use it, ) WHFB is less restrictive than 40k FOC as it doesnt artificialy restrict units in an abstract way by 'number of slots based on function',and prevents counterintuitive allocation.

A basic composition system simply allocates rarity of units/elements in a force. The basic WHFB system achives this in a straight forward way.Therfore is a better system to use as reguards to efficiency.

But 40k FOC continuies the themes of the 40k rule set.
Take a very simple function, fail to define it in a comprehensive way, and rely on additional poorly defined systems to arrive at a simple function covered in the most complicated way!

So I can understand why you prefer 40ks FOC for 40k games.
Logic , common sense, well defined and comprehensive ideas are all BANNED from 40k games development.

TTFN
lanrak.

@Lanrak: I believe you need to read more clearly. I said that it was "no worse than WFB", which means that it is NOT less efficient than WFB's system. You appear to have mistakenly drawn a completely incorrect conclusion by ignoring a key word "no" in my comment.

As I noted before, WFB has large step-related balance problems, and you seem to gloss that over. Going 1 pt from 1999 to 2000 makes for a huge change of +5 slots in FOC, where this never occurs with the 40k FOC or the previous WFB5 %-based system. There are tradeoffs for this, and this detracts from the "efficiency" that you claim. The stepwise approach results in a huge power jump from 1999 to 2000, along with a typical reduction in army size.

With 40k's fixed FOC, and Troops-only Scoring rule, especially beyond 1000 pts or so, armies simply get larger as more points are added to the army. This smoothness is a virtue as well.

As I also noted, within any given 1000-pt band (e.g. 2000-2999) in WFB, the power shifts from higher-power at 2000 to higher-core at 2999.

Now, if you want to talk about a system that doesn't restrict units by slots, then you go back to a WFB5 system which is purely % allocation based. But to claim that the WFB system doesn't restrict by slots is patently false.

Still, I can see why you prefer WFB: presumed self-superiority based on puffery and arrogance.

Have a nice life,

/JKohn

HI JohnHwangDD.

I belive it is yo that needs to read more clearly.
This is a direct quote from your post.
'I said it was less efficient, which means that it works, but works differently. And certainly, it's no worse than how WFB changes power at different point levels.'
Emphasis mine.

Step related balance problems are due to poor implementation , not a problem with the basic system.(Band sizes can be reduced to smooth out jumps.)

With the additional rules EG 'troops only scoring only' the 40k FOC can be amended to provide a better system.But to work effectivly at a set PV band the 40k FOC, NEEDS extra rules that the WHFB system does not.

I posted.
''As a basic systyem (irrespective of how GW devs use it, ) WHFB is less restrictive than 40k FOC as it doesnt artificialy restrict units in an abstract way by 'number of slots based on function',and prevents counterintuitive allocation.

A basic composition system simply allocates rarity of units/elements in a force. The basic WHFB system achives this in a straight forward way.Therfore is a better system to use as reguards to efficiency. ''

Where did I claim that WHFB doesnt restrict by slots?
Apart from using % composition which can be a bit clumbersome.
Allocating 'slots to rarity' is the next most efficient method I am aware of.

Allocating slot to function , is artificialy restricting and abstract.

I will have a grand life, thanks!
TTFN
Lanrak.