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.

 LunarSol wrote:
I think I'd prefer to say that 40k has grown out of the need for it. Rule of 3 has pretty successfully replaced it but it's a relatively similar concept that's mostly become unecessary as GW has given units more distinct roles and less reliance on raw stat blocks.

I think this is the key point. GW has become a lot better at designing rules such that armies look like armies. Rather than explicit spam.

I mean I complained at the outside of 10th that armies were starting to look like AoS. I'm not sure people entirely understood what I mean - but in AoS (and if you don't believe me, check the Goonhammer or your preferred way of seeing the lists) often look (or at least did at the time) like this:

"High King of the Faction on Named Monster"
"Regular Lord of the Faction on Generic Monster"
"Cavalry Hammer Unit"
"Solid Anvil unit"
"buffbot 1"
"buffbot 2"
"Light objective scorer 1"
"Light objective scorer 2"

They had essentially no ballast. No basic troops to take and hold.
For 40k, think those early dominant Eldar lists with say either Avatar, 3 Fire Prisms, a Brick of Wraithguard and some buffing characters plus 2 units of swooping hawks to score. (And then essentially every unit in the codex just to prove that you could.)
You can obviously build lists like that - "woops Silent King and 2-3 C'Tan" for Necrons being perhaps the most common example. But by and large they aren't the most competitive way to play.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Looking at last weeks top tournament lists, 10th edition has thoroughly proven that there has never been a need for the FOC.

I think I'd prefer to say that 40k has grown out of the need for it. Rule of 3 has pretty successfully replaced it but it's a relatively similar concept that's mostly become unecessary as GW has given units more distinct roles and less reliance on raw stat blocks.

Fair. The rule of 3 is still needed for cheap units of 1 (ork buggies, for example) or as a contingency measure when GW fails to properly balance a new codex/unit.

Yeah, I definitely think the Rule Of Three should stay as a general thing.
GW's done better than they have in the past with balance and such... But that doesn't mean they won't make mistakes.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Sounds more like it’s fixed character loadouts that are the problem. And perhaps we can hope that’s fixed in the eventual new wave of Codexes.

But, outside of character spam and its impact?

Have people found its lead to a greater variety in opposing armies? Looking back at my original contribution, I was optimistic removing the FoC would create more variety, as units are competing only on points, and not limited slots.

On the tournament scene? I'm gonna say 'no'. I've taken to watching livestreams on the weekends, and I see a lot of repetition, particularly in the top-of-the-meta armies. Tournament try-hards are still going to spam the most powerful units they can.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Sounds more like it’s fixed character loadouts that are the problem. And perhaps we can hope that’s fixed in the eventual new wave of Codexes.

But, outside of character spam and its impact?

People aren't spamming characters though, because there is advantage in doing so anymore. Therefore no problem, no impact.

Have people found its lead to a greater variety in opposing armies? Looking back at my original contribution, I was optimistic removing the FoC would create more variety, as units are competing only on points, and not limited slots.

I think so. One of my favorite armies this edition, the ork dread mob, would have been impossible with the FOC. Just last Sunday, I played the equivalent of 8 HS slots and the only datasheets I doubled up on were deff dreads and flash gits.

Even in tournament lists often tend to have a variable part where people adapt an army archetype to their tastes. With absolute freedom to chose among the whole codex for that part, armies either picked more units to support their core or units to mitigate its weaknesses. Or simply the units the had finished painting.
In contrast, in previous editions your core usually took up all of your HS/FA/elite slots, which often forced you to pick something the least bad thing for your remaining slots rather something which fits your strategy.

A lot of it depends on what you look for. There's a ton of data to the point where you can probably come to what conclusion you wish depending on what you want to see.

That said, my two biggest pet peeves for data are "podiums" and "win rates". The top 3 of events is a really arbitrary cut off point and really limits your data set to where things feel a lot more samey than they really are. When you look at things with 1 loss on the day or even 2 losses for particularly large events, you get a real sense of variety and in reality the difference between second/third and the rest of the X-1s is effectively arbitrary. Win rates is just hugely problematic because there's so much skill variety in that data set that pulling meaningful information from it leads to a lot of bad conclusions. How relevant are games played by marine players who don't declare Oath for example?

In that, I think 10th faction diversity has been excellent. I think individual army diversity is interesting as while there's a lot of group think repetition, the way that post data slate armies are able to adapt shows to me more depth than would appear. Marines are probably the most notable of this, with a lot of players focusing on the current best flavor, but even then there's been a good amount of success from a variety of chapters (all playing Gladius )

I think the build on individual models is weird. There are definitely losers in the build options that never see play but a lot of things are even enough that a lot of the similarity seems to come down to someone finding something that works and no one really seeing a need to argue. I think part of it is just that a lot of wargear is kind of irrelevant, particularly on characters because its not their main focus. I know several times I've wrung my hands over not having the right loadout only to realize mid game what I've got is good enough and the situation where I'm suboptimal is niche enough that it doesn't decide the game. If it does, there's probably something else I could have done better to make it not matter long before it got to that point.

The current paradigm is a bit love hate for me.

They've done a pretty good job of balance, but to do that they've given out a lot of arbitrary special rules that in many cases have no connection to the unit or reflect anything we know about them in their background. It's like they balanced them to a price point and then plastered the gap in capability with a rule.

And while that might make for a balanced game it doesn't really reflect the setting or units to me that much. Some of the rules are also really abstract like sticky objectives which I have a hard time visualising as any actual THING in the setting.

I personally enjoy 40k for the simulation and the less connected it feels the less relevant the setting and ultimately the miniatures feel.

So I respect the design quality, but am ambivalent on its connection to the product it is representing.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


But, outside of character spam and its impact?

Have people found its lead to a greater variety in opposing armies?

In opposing armies?
Not to a great degree. :(
Alot of my opponents are very unimaginative/meta slaves when it comes to building armies. Most dont even consider using allied options like Imperial Agents etc. A few do, but it tops out at "I can use a (favorite assassin)".
Even in Crusades they dont really change things up, select units for narrative reasons.

In my own forces?
Hell yes.
I was already greatly freed up under 9e's system. 10e is even better for people like me who'll use anything/everything.
But then winning is not my primary goal & I have a vast collection to mix/match with.
I'm completely fine with no FoC other than needing 1 mandatory character. Now if GW will just drop that annoying Rule of 3....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
, or 15 space marine captains simply because they happen to exist on multiple datasheets. That you can have more captains than marine eliminator models in your army is silly.

Yes it is.

Wich is exactly why I built a 17 captain/2 Landraider/1 drop pod BA force for our current Escalation League.
(Its doing pretty well i might add.)

Simply "Because I can" IS a valid enough reason for me to do something in this game.
Always has been.