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.

@Stormonu.
Are you familiar with the F.o.C for Flames of War?
This covers similar sized forces to current 40k.(But in 15mm.)

They have
HQ unit.(Sets the company type.)

Combat platoons.(Core Company units.)

Weapons Platoons/Brigade Support .(Common support units attached to the Company.)(EG Mortars HMG ,infantry field guns eg close support units.)

Divisional Support.(More Specialist and limited support units.)(More restricted units like artillery batteries, specialist anti tank units, and air support.And counter theme support, tanks for infantry companies , and infantry for tank companies etc.)

In fact lots of battle games covering WWII/modern war, use this sort of 'thematic core' with 'add on support' method.

As far as I can tell, the GW devs wanted to change the 3rd ed F.O.C from 4th ed onwards as they thought it was a bit too restrictive.
(Going back to percentages like 2nd ed/WHFB, or slots unlocking options, etc, were discussed.)

But rather than allow a complete overhaul, to allow more themed/narrative lists,GW sales department just let the devs add on formations /detachment rules .This is just a complicated way to arrive at the same result ,IMO.

Also I think two important tactical features are missing from the game play of 40k.

Concealment,and L.O.S Blocking munitions.(Units hiding and firing smoke etc.)
This gives scouts/recon units a real function in the game to discover/spot enemy units.

And as previously discussed suppression, to allow shooting to be tactically useful, without having to compete directly with assault.

What are your thoughts on this?

There are smoke launchers, but I would also like to see uses for Flashbangs, smoke grenades/mortar rounds and the like. I also detest that such concealment is essentially an armor save, my rewrite makes it affect the chances of hitting in the first place.

And definately, suppression should be an effective tactic.

Still up in the air over FOC changes, though something in that area needs to be done (I hate formations, to be honest).

In terms of organization, I both like and hate Formations. I like the Formations that allow for some flexibility in quantity, like the Strike Force Core options, or detail a small group used for small specific configurations like the Reclusiam Command Squad or the Annihilation Nexus. But, I don't like big groups in which there is zero flexibility.

The Decurion/Strike Force/etc detachments are actually quite good in capturing that fluffy feel of a force in terms of organization. In a way it is very close to how Planetfall and Forces of War do their army organizations, and they aren't required like they are in Planetfall and Forces of War.

Where I think GW went bad with Formations is that the Special Rules that come with them make them a no brainer, and then compound the error by adding on the Command Benefits provided by the Choice Detachments. Seriously, why should we have to have Special Rules for these Formations, and if we should why should they have the level of power that most of them do.

@Stormonu.
I think we agree on this then.
Bring back smoke ,(and Bind), shells, grenades and mortars.(In a carefully applied way.)

As this adds the tactical option to units that can not possibley take out a heavy tank for example.
They now can drop smoke on the tank, to make it difficult for the tank to target friendly units.Or directly in front of the smoke firing unit to improve their own chances of survival .

Cover, smoke, smaller size, (and may be range?)Making units harder to hit at range is sensible.

A simply applied suppression mechanic allows infantry to be important, and have tactically different uses to vehicles (and MCs).(Like all good war games seem to do. )

@Charistoph.
I would like to try to get the flexibility and thematic feel, found in the good formation/detachment set up as you pointed out.
But arrive at it with a simple core F,O,C mechanic that can be easily be used with multiple themed lists.

You posted..
''Where I think GW went bad with Formations is that the Special Rules that come with them make them a no brainer, and then compound the error by adding on the Command Benefits provided by the Choice Detachments. Seriously, why should we have to have Special Rules for these Formations, and if we should why should they have the level of power that most of them do.''

I completely and totally agree with you on this.

I've updated the first two posts with the latest rules and army lists. I've done some consolidating and sheer stripping of what I feel are unneccessary special rules. Though I have also made an effort to standardize a list of status conditions.

There's been some work on game/board setup and simple army drafting rules. After the conversations with Lanrak, I'm considering creating some special army construction rules in the codexes - allowing either generic builds or themed builds. Unlike 40K's formations, if they end up having any special rules, they won't offer any special bonuses without point costs.

I've made an initial pass at tweaking points, but I very much guess that they are way undercosted. Again, I'm working from the basis that a Marine with no upgrades is worth 15 points.