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.

@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.