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.

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.