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.
2022/08/09 14:36:41
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
Horus Heresy FOC is great! Rites of war really allow you a lot of freedom and thematic lists, and you will have further restrictions imposed to offset the freedoms you gain with any particular RoW.
It's not nearly as unbound like 8th/9th FoC, and doesn't give massive power creep like Decurion style detachments of 7th.
I hope 10th or 11th or whenever the bloated mess requires a total reset, they use the HH2.0 rules as a baseline to build off of.
2022/08/09 14:42:22
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
I certainly wouldn't bring back the old FOC, because its incredibly limiting on how you build an army. This made sort of sense 15 years ago - but the model range is far higher, the average points cost of stuff has tended to fall (although not in all circumstances I admit).
So aside from the usual "change in a vacuum" thing these discussions always bring up, why are limitations a bad thing?
I don't think all limitations are bad - hence supporting the rule of 3.
But the FOC was in an era where books tended to have 2-3 elite/fast attack/heavy support options (some always had a few more). If you wanted to run a highlander (or no more than 2 of the same) you could have most of your collection on the table.
Today most books have 5+ options in each section. Now I guess you can say "that's fine, embrace the 3rd ed cookie cutter, just take 3 of the best unit and forget 80% of the options" - but I think that's awful for the game.
2022/08/09 15:13:15
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
Today most books have 5+ options in each section. Now I guess you can say "that's fine, embrace the 3rd ed cookie cutter, just take 3 of the best unit and forget 80% of the options" - but I think that's awful for the game.
I agree. The old FOC makes sense if you cut down on options and sunset units so it would be more like the old edition.
2022/08/09 15:17:04
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
I'm not quite sure why having more options means that the FoC doesn't work, if the whole idea is to have you make choices. Unless your point is that people will just pick the best options, in which case it's a balance issue first and foremost.
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
2022/08/09 15:32:42
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
Today most books have 5+ options in each section. Now I guess you can say "that's fine, embrace the 3rd ed cookie cutter, just take 3 of the best unit and forget 80% of the options" - but I think that's awful for the game.
Have is a big word. Who cares if a marine codex comes with 100 tanks in it, when non of them is worth being run. People take the best 3 options, because often it is all their codex has. And some books don't even have 3 options worth taking in each slot, and that would be espcialy true if GW legended all the classic marine stuff. Suddenly the melee/close range army, which is the most popular one in the game is also slow, has no real transports, no tanks and its buff and melee characters have the speed of ground infantry.
What are thee 5+ FA or Heavy support options for Ad Mecha, is there even 5+ elite options for orks etc? And this is big armies with updated model lines. Armies that didn't get a model update in 8th don't even have 3, heck some don't even have 2 for their FA/Elite/Hvy slots.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/09 15:32:57
2022/08/09 15:35:29
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I'm not quite sure why having more options means that the FoC doesn't work, if the whole idea is to have you make choices. Unless your point is that people will just pick the best options, in which case it's a balance issue first and foremost.
Yeah, it's confusing to me that people complaint he old FOC would be too restrictive, when the whole point of suggesting its return is to introduce some meaningful restrictions (and therefore choices) in army building. If the old FOC did return there would certainly need to be changes to some of the Codexes and the slots some things occupy, but I'd always assumed that was taken as read.
2022/08/09 16:06:09
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
The slots things occupy definitely need adjustment, but that's why I like Core, Special, Rare, Hero, and Lord from WHFB. It also changes what you can take based on the size of the game. Core for some armies included things from basic foot soldiers to Heavy Cavalry.
Availability from Infinity is also cool, but I'm not sure how well it would work without many changes, so I'll leave that up to others to discuss.
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
2022/08/09 16:06:38
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I'm not quite sure why having more options means that the FoC doesn't work, if the whole idea is to have you make choices. Unless your point is that people will just pick the best options, in which case it's a balance issue first and foremost.
Yeah, it's confusing to me that people complaint he old FOC would be too restrictive, when the whole point of suggesting its return is to introduce some meaningful restrictions (and therefore choices) in army building. If the old FOC did return there would certainly need to be changes to some of the Codexes and the slots some things occupy, but I'd always assumed that was taken as read.
Dakka posters lack nuance and critical thinking. Any suggestion in this thread has been met with "that idea would never work because it doesn't plug into 9th as is right now." Completely missing the fact that obviously there would be a multitude of changes to support any drastic changes made to the core rules such as the FOC.
2022/08/09 16:10:24
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I'm not quite sure why having more options means that the FoC doesn't work, if the whole idea is to have you make choices. Unless your point is that people will just pick the best options, in which case it's a balance issue first and foremost.
Yeah, it's confusing to me that people complaint he old FOC would be too restrictive, when the whole point of suggesting its return is to introduce some meaningful restrictions (and therefore choices) in army building. If the old FOC did return there would certainly need to be changes to some of the Codexes and the slots some things occupy, but I'd always assumed that was taken as read.
Meaningful choices in army building happens with good internal balance, not the FOC. Or would you argue 7th Eldar were great under the old FOC?
2022/08/09 16:13:59
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
The old FOC was a plauge which finally 8th edition freed us from.
It was custom built on imperial factions and terrible for anything different... like anything in those editions.
The current detachment system is striking a good compromise between freedom of choice and consequences of those choices, but indeed the AoS system would probably be better.
2022/08/09 16:16:06
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
I also like Infinity's Availability, where you can only take a certain amount of each unit, and subfactions change the Availability of units.
Yeah thats a much better system that actually allows to control how many of a spammy unit you see depending on how good it is
Instead of adding layers of rules to say you can't bring more than X of a specific unit, they could just change the availability of that unit instead.
They could make Leman Russ AVA 9 to get rid of the useless squadron rules too for example.
You shouldn't be able to bring fewer Voidweavers because they are undercosted, they should just be costed appropriately.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I'm not quite sure why having more options means that the FoC doesn't work, if the whole idea is to have you make choices. Unless your point is that people will just pick the best options, in which case it's a balance issue first and foremost.
If FA A is undercosted I will bring 3 of them. If I still want to bring FA B then I can only do it under the current Detachment rules. The current detachment rules are also a really neat way to handle allies, you're not just shoving 30 Guardsmen into your list, you're taking the commander needed to lead them and not just ordering them around with your Space Marine Warlord.
2022/08/09 16:24:36
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
Jidmah wrote: The old FOC did not solve any problems, quite the opposite.
I'd rather see elite, fast attack and heavy support slots going away and be replaced by a new "you can't have infinite amounts of these" slot.
It's not like those slots have any meaning anymore, GW just assigns them to units at random.
Yep, it didn't fix anything and every army had ways around it bc of those issues. Many had ways to take extra units without slots, had ways to turn Elites and FA into troops, and everyone hated the limitations for something or another.
Just give each unit an allocation rating. The rating says how many of that unit can be on the board in your army. Then just plug and play.
For example all named characters would be a "1". Meaning that you can only have one of them in your army. A tank may be a "6" so you can have 6 of them on the table. Some units would be a "U" for unlimited. Subfaction may adjust the rating of various units to comply with their fluff. So white scars may make bike units "U" but tac squads may go from "U" to "3". And tanks may go to "0". (Obviously I'm just making up numbers and adjustments but I'm sure you get the idea).
2022/08/09 16:57:54
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Just give each unit an allocation rating. The rating says how many of that unit can be on the board in your army. Then just plug and play.
For example all named characters would be a "1". Meaning that you can only have one of them in your army. A tank may be a "6" so you can have 6 of them on the table. Some units would be a "U" for unlimited. Subfaction may adjust the rating of various units to comply with their fluff. So white scars may make bike units "U" but tac squads may go from "U" to "3". And tanks may go to "0". (Obviously I'm just making up numbers and adjustments but I'm sure you get the idea).
Not sure if you know, but that is basically what Infinity does. Basic troops of a faction have Availability: Total, and most units have an availability number, and named characters are limited to 1, even if they have more than one entry. For example, my Combined Army can bring any amount of Unidron Batroids, as long as it falls within the 15 total order limit, and I can take 4 Daturazi, and Nourkias is a named character, so I can take 1 of him.
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
2022/08/09 17:00:02
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
Tittliewinks22 wrote: Horus Heresy FOC is great! Rites of war really allow you a lot of freedom and thematic lists, and you will have further restrictions imposed to offset the freedoms you gain with any particular RoW.
It's not nearly as unbound like 8th/9th FoC, and doesn't give massive power creep like Decurion style detachments of 7th.
I hope 10th or 11th or whenever the bloated mess requires a total reset, they use the HH2.0 rules as a baseline to build off of.
No.
HH rules as they exist now are a hodgepodge of 7th edition 40k and Sigmar. It's a house of cards that mostly works because they only have to balance the game for 1 army.
2022/08/09 17:02:30
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
Tittliewinks22 wrote: Horus Heresy FOC is great! Rites of war really allow you a lot of freedom and thematic lists, and you will have further restrictions imposed to offset the freedoms you gain with any particular RoW.
It's not nearly as unbound like 8th/9th FoC, and doesn't give massive power creep like Decurion style detachments of 7th.
I hope 10th or 11th or whenever the bloated mess requires a total reset, they use the HH2.0 rules as a baseline to build off of.
No.
HH rules as they exist now are a hodgepodge of 7th edition 40k and Sigmar. It's a house of cards that mostly works because they only have to balance the game for 1 army.
1 army, including Solar Auxilia, Mechanicum, and Daemons?
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
2022/08/09 17:10:01
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I'm not quite sure why having more options means that the FoC doesn't work, if the whole idea is to have you make choices. Unless your point is that people will just pick the best options, in which case it's a balance issue first and foremost.
Yeah, it's confusing to me that people complaint he old FOC would be too restrictive, when the whole point of suggesting its return is to introduce some meaningful restrictions (and therefore choices) in army building. If the old FOC did return there would certainly need to be changes to some of the Codexes and the slots some things occupy, but I'd always assumed that was taken as read.
Dakka posters lack nuance and critical thinking. Any suggestion in this thread has been met with "that idea would never work because it doesn't plug into 9th as is right now." Completely missing the fact that obviously there would be a multitude of changes to support any drastic changes made to the core rules such as the FOC.
No, the problem is people who post crap like 'the old FOC tho...' do so imagining some idealized version of it where they can still bring all the fun stuff they want but don't have to deal with 'cheese' (which is generally defined by people who post stuff like that as 'anything my army might lose to').
When people say 'no, that idea is stupid' they're referring to reality, as it exists currently.
Then some dingbat comes in and say people don't understand nuance because they didn't fully build out the idea to whatever arbitrary restrictions or exceptions the posters are imagining (but not STATING) would take place.
We get it, your FOC would be super mega awesome and no cheese and perfectly balanced, we just need the 'nuance' and 'critical thinking'. Ignore the fact that the moment you post anything specific there will be 100 legitimate critiques because your ideas are almost certainly stupid to some degree.
It's an easy way to respond acerbically to criticism without actually needing to expose your own ideas.
2022/08/09 17:37:03
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
You shouldn't be able to bring fewer Voidweavers because they are undercosted, they should just be costed appropriately.
yeah, like they currently are....
Still, limiting people to 3of's is a random limitation that often doesn't work with the fluff of the armies.
Why can't my Night Lords take 4+ squads of raptors?
Why can't Saim-ann take 4+ squads of jetbikes?
etc.
Instead of adding a blanket limitation, this would open up new aspects in the game. Letting a subfaction have more or less of a specific datasheet is a better way to represent them than giving them special rules.
If FA A is undercosted I will bring 3 of them. If I still want to bring FA B then I can only do it under the current Detachment rules. The current detachment rules are also a really neat way to handle allies, you're not just shoving 30 Guardsmen into your list, you're taking the commander needed to lead them and not just ordering them around with your Space Marine Warlord.
So change the rules for allying?
"For each unit you include that doesnt share a keyword with your warlord, pay x additionnal points"
or
"You may include units that do not share a keyword with your warlord if you also add at least one HQ that shares a keyword with that unit"
or
"You may not include units that do not share a keyword with your warlord"
or
"<Imperial guard> units may be added to any <Imperium> armies"
or
anything else really
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/09 17:39:55
2022/08/09 17:47:57
Subject: Re:Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
If you were married to the FOC I'd say you get a modern brigade template, and the mandatory part would be 2 HQ choices and 3 units of troops. Reasonable scope to include a balanced army, but also at least 5 FS & HS and 8 elite choices to be getting on with.
I don't see what balance issue, or "fun" issue is being provided by saying "sure you have 10 FS & HS choices, but you can only have 3. And if you take 3 of the best datasheet that's it." I don't think its a fun choice - its just lame. It was lame for certain bigger factions even back in 3rd.
2022/08/09 18:10:07
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Just give each unit an allocation rating. The rating says how many of that unit can be on the board in your army. Then just plug and play.
For example all named characters would be a "1". Meaning that you can only have one of them in your army. A tank may be a "6" so you can have 6 of them on the table. Some units would be a "U" for unlimited. Subfaction may adjust the rating of various units to comply with their fluff. So white scars may make bike units "U" but tac squads may go from "U" to "3". And tanks may go to "0". (Obviously I'm just making up numbers and adjustments but I'm sure you get the idea).
Not sure if you know, but that is basically what Infinity does. Basic troops of a faction have Availability: Total, and most units have an availability number, and named characters are limited to 1, even if they have more than one entry. For example, my Combined Army can bring any amount of Unidron Batroids, as long as it falls within the 15 total order limit, and I can take 4 Daturazi, and Nourkias is a named character, so I can take 1 of him.
I've never had exposure to Infinity. I was thinking more like Warmahordes. PP assigned every card a Force Availability Rating. "C" for character, # for how many or, "U" for unlimited. The # was usually 1 or 2.
2022/08/09 18:15:36
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
TheBestBucketHead wrote:The slots things occupy definitely need adjustment, but that's why I like Core, Special, Rare, Hero, and Lord from WHFB. It also changes what you can take based on the size of the game. Core for some armies included things from basic foot soldiers to Heavy Cavalry.
I'm a fan of this system. I don't hate the old FOC, but having Elites/FA/HS separated out allowed some armies to pull off nasty min-maxing while others struggled with thematic lists. The Core/Special/Rare trifecta makes it easy for the developers to decide which things should be staples of an army and which things should be rarely seen, and also provides a straightforward lever to adjust composition for themed armies.
Edit: It also neatly sidesteps the Ro3 issue of being able to spam similar-but-different datasheets, and means a player can't just cherry-pick all their army's star units. That's a bit more restrictive than the current FOC, but I think the game would be much better for it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/09 18:24:39
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I'm not quite sure why having more options means that the FoC doesn't work, if the whole idea is to have you make choices. Unless your point is that people will just pick the best options, in which case it's a balance issue first and foremost.
One thing. Do you want to encourage death stars? As the 3e foc style would do that. Ducy?
Myself never been fan of death stars.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2022/08/09 18:34:27
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
Why does it encourage Death Stars, and why does the current system of detachments not allow for them?
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
2022/08/09 18:51:51
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
Tittliewinks22 wrote: Horus Heresy FOC is great! Rites of war really allow you a lot of freedom and thematic lists, and you will have further restrictions imposed to offset the freedoms you gain with any particular RoW.
It's not nearly as unbound like 8th/9th FoC, and doesn't give massive power creep like Decurion style detachments of 7th.
I hope 10th or 11th or whenever the bloated mess requires a total reset, they use the HH2.0 rules as a baseline to build off of.
No.
HH rules as they exist now are a hodgepodge of 7th edition 40k and Sigmar. It's a house of cards that mostly works because they only have to balance the game for 1 army.
HH rules definitely are broken if your goal is to play tournament cutthroat, what GW rule-set isn't. They are also much closer to the beer/pretzel fun with buds on a weekend time that modern 40k decided to abandon in their mission to placate the ITC crowd. I stand by a statement I made a few months back in another similar thread:
40k needs two different rulesets, one that is more narratively driven, and one that is more bare bones competitive. This current paradigm of adding laughable crusade elements to the competitive ruleset doesn't work, likewise the competitive ruleset is too complex to ever achieve true competitive balance. I firmly believe that a ruleset more akin to HH fills the role-play, "your guys" element really well and having a drastically different ruleset from competitive 40k would probably benefit the hobby as a whole. Of course this will take some actual effort from GW so it's a pipe dream.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I'm not quite sure why having more options means that the FoC doesn't work, if the whole idea is to have you make choices. Unless your point is that people will just pick the best options, in which case it's a balance issue first and foremost.
Yeah, it's confusing to me that people complaint he old FOC would be too restrictive, when the whole point of suggesting its return is to introduce some meaningful restrictions (and therefore choices) in army building. If the old FOC did return there would certainly need to be changes to some of the Codexes and the slots some things occupy, but I'd always assumed that was taken as read.
Dakka posters lack nuance and critical thinking. Any suggestion in this thread has been met with "that idea would never work because it doesn't plug into 9th as is right now." Completely missing the fact that obviously there would be a multitude of changes to support any drastic changes made to the core rules such as the FOC.
No, the problem is people who post crap like 'the old FOC tho...' do so imagining some idealized version of it where they can still bring all the fun stuff they want but don't have to deal with 'cheese' (which is generally defined by people who post stuff like that as 'anything my army might lose to').
When people say 'no, that idea is stupid' they're referring to reality, as it exists currently.
Then some dingbat comes in and say people don't understand nuance because they didn't fully build out the idea to whatever arbitrary restrictions or exceptions the posters are imagining (but not STATING) would take place.
We get it, your FOC would be super mega awesome and no cheese and perfectly balanced, we just need the 'nuance' and 'critical thinking'. Ignore the fact that the moment you post anything specific there will be 100 legitimate critiques because your ideas are almost certainly stupid to some degree.
It's an easy way to respond acerbically to criticism without actually needing to expose your own ideas.
Thank you for confirming my original assessment of the average dakka user.
In a thread titled "What changes would you like to see?" regarding a future potential hard reset, the merits of an idea are not bound "to reality, as it exists currently" as you put it.
Stop trying to attribute motive to people who suggest things you personally do not like, or if you have some legitimate criticism, maybe don't shoot the ideas down based on your pre-existing knowledge, but rather ask for amplifying information to make a concept more clear.
Don't clog a wish list thread with elitist WAAC mentality. That's what has ruined 40k for a lot of people, hence the abundance of hope for a return to past mechanics/rule sets.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/09 19:01:31
2022/08/09 19:08:07
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Why does it encourage Death Stars, and why does the current system of detachments not allow for them?
Fewer slots would, if a faction could it, mean that it would gravitate to more powerful units. If before you could run 3 HQs, maybe a LoWcmd, and then had the option to take another detachment for more HQs, you could pick different ones, maybe a little bit less optimised. If you only have 2 HQ slots, you batcha it is going to be the best of the best 2 HQs out of the entire book. The same would got for the other slots limited to 3.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2022/08/09 19:12:14
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Why does it encourage Death Stars, and why does the current system of detachments not allow for them?
Fewer slots would, if a faction could it, mean that it would gravitate to more powerful units. If before you could run 3 HQs, maybe a LoWcmd, and then had the option to take another detachment for more HQs, you could pick different ones, maybe a little bit less optimised. If you only have 2 HQ slots, you batcha it is going to be the best of the best 2 HQs out of the entire book. The same would got for the other slots limited to 3.
Sounds like a WAAC problem. Maybe 40k just isn't suppose to be a competitive game.
2022/08/09 19:13:06
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
Tyel wrote: If you were married to the FOC I'd say you get a modern brigade template, and the mandatory part would be 2 HQ choices and 3 units of troops. Reasonable scope to include a balanced army, but also at least 5 FS & HS and 8 elite choices to be getting on with.
I don't see what balance issue, or "fun" issue is being provided by saying "sure you have 10 FS & HS choices, but you can only have 3. And if you take 3 of the best datasheet that's it." I don't think its a fun choice - its just lame. It was lame for certain bigger factions even back in 3rd.
That is a huge promotion to armies with an extended list of elite, heavy support and FA option and low need to run troops, or outright weak troops. If rule of 3 would stay in effect, it would be a heaven for armies like eldar and some very unfun time for armies that require multiple HQ to run efficiently. It would be a huge nerf for marines, which make up the majority of armies being played. Would also be a back door nerf to armies that don't have those 2+ different option per slot worth running.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tittliewinks22 806314 11415087 wrote:
Sounds like a WAAC problem. Maybe 40k just isn't suppose to be a competitive game.
How is GW designing armies with 1 option worth taking in a slot , a WAAC problem. WAAC player have no problems like that. They play what is the most optimised army for given rule set. Also if something has winner and a loser at the end, and has an extensive rule set on how to earn points aka how to win, it just became competitive. If w40k was like playing house with dolls, then yes it wouldn't be competitive. But then we wouldn't be talking about rules questions or the viability of a FoC system either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/09 19:19:08
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2022/08/09 19:20:04
Subject: Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see?
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Why does it encourage Death Stars, and why does the current system of detachments not allow for them?
Fewer slots would, if a faction could it, mean that it would gravitate to more powerful units. If before you could run 3 HQs, maybe a LoWcmd, and then had the option to take another detachment for more HQs, you could pick different ones, maybe a little bit less optimised. If you only have 2 HQ slots, you batcha it is going to be the best of the best 2 HQs out of the entire book. The same would got for the other slots limited to 3.
And you're telling me that people don't currently gravitate towards more powerful units? Less availability means you need to make decisions about what you take. The issue is that 40k doesn't really do that. It's usually shooting, speed, or melee, and HQs for buffs, but we need to make it so that there's really a choice between units that fill those roles, rather than picking a role and going with the best. Why, when I play Infinity, do I usually pick what I pick? It's because the units I pick play in a style I want them to play. I could go heavy on hacking, melee, shooting, speed, camo, or whatever. Or, I could take a combination of units that do what I need for the mission at hand, specialists to do the mission, and build my army around completing a goal and supporting the other units. When I take a shooty and a stabby unit, the shooty supports the stabby, which makes its way to the big enemy robots, and stabs it to death. The hackers support or deny support, or just shut down certain units. I have to think a lot more about the units and the strategy I want to employ, even just on a small scale.
For instance, I can use a smoke grenade guy to bring a forward observer up to an enemy and target them, so that my missile bot can fire on their shooty guy, then have my forward observer grab the objective.
In 40k, I can move forward, shoot, charge, and try to keep my guys in cover or unseen while collecting points on an objective.
Now, I am purely casual, so I don't have a high level understanding of 40k, but there's little inter-unit, I forget the word, so I'm using collaboration, someone can correct me. Very little inter-unit collaboration that leads to decision making for a force organization chart, and there should be. I haven't play HH 2.0 yet, but I like the idea of pinning stopping reactions, and hope that I can enjoy the game casually, as I do Infinity.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I forgot to include that it's also another balance problem. Just don't have one or two clearly superior choices, and you're better off.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/09 19:21:03
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
