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.

The present force org doesn't properly serve games under ~1250 or in the 2k-3k range.

Combat Patrol and 40k in 40 min, as previously pointed out, are out of print, and don't always work anyway. CSM don't have any 2 wound HQs anymore, for one example. Apoc is a decent system for non-competive games once you get up over the 3k mark. A scaling force org chart does what's necessary with fewer words, in the core book.

Brevity is the soul of wit, clean design is usually good design.

Hence, the simplicity of not bothering with a variable FOC. Keeps It Simple.

"Make it as simple as possible but no simpler." The WH system works better. So modify and adopt it. Step 3: profit!

Wot was 40k in 40 minutes? And can you still play combat patrols?

"40k in 40 minutes" is the predecessor to "Combat Patrol". It's small-scale 40k with a number of restrictions due to the shift in scale.

the rules for WHFB are way better, the force org chart is something I really did not like about 40k, but it does help only having to memorize one instead of one for each 1000 pt teir

Lanrak wrote:
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?

Agreed. Although the game itself is an abstraction...the less abstraction within the abstraction...the better, in my opinion.

In that case, the game should be a sim skirmish of perhaps a dozen or two models per side using 1:1 ground scale.

JohnHwangDD wrote:In that case, the game should be a sim skirmish of perhaps a dozen or two models per side using 1:1 ground scale.

You understood my point. Why act as if you didn't?

On your side note though: if 40k "reenactment" (what exactly would you call that?) could be possibly done...man, I'd have one heck of a new hobby.

Huh? De-abstracting means you're moving to simulation.

The problem with nearly all wargames is that simulation completely fails WRT ground scale, which is especially bad for firing ranges and scaled movement.

I really like the force org chart! However I'd love to see more armies be able to "manipulate" the chart to suit their specific needs. For example;

An IG player who takes X (being an HQ, I dunno any of theirs off hand so I can't name one) as an HQ choice may swap 2 Fast Attack slots for 1 additional Heavy Support slot. This must be announced prior to deployment. You may choose not to use this rule.

Something like that. I think every army should be allowed to take certain HQ's that allow swapping out certain parts of our force org to benefit others. So like Nids may swap out elite slots to get more troops perhaps, or chaos could swap out fast attack or troop choices to gain additional elite choices or something.

As it stands I think the FOC is fine, I just hate that some armys have certain "weak" slots that you never fill. I think it'd be neat to be able to trade em for something you might actually USE!

JohnHwangDD wrote:Huh? De-abstracting means you're moving to simulation.

The problem with nearly all wargames is that simulation completely fails WRT ground scale, which is especially bad for firing ranges and scaled movement.

I meant deabstracing in the sense of, if using TLOS, it is still strange that units out of sight can be killed, and so on.

Hi,
JohnHwangDD,what exactly did you mean in your quote?

'Huh? De-abstracting means you're moving to simulation.

The problem with nearly all wargames is that simulation completely fails WRT ground scale, which is especially bad for firing ranges and scaled movement.'

Are you saying ...
Because 40k uses grossly disproportionate vertical and horisontal scales it HAS to have overly (and totaly unecissarily ) abstract rules?

Or that the discrepency in vertical and ground scale in ALL simulation type wargames ,is SO detracting its impossible to enjoy the game?

Could you explain further please?
Its just in my experiance most prefer straightforward intuitive rules to a mess of abstractions, and discrepencies in horisontal and vertical scales are not an issue if they are scaled proportionatley.

TTFN
lanrak.

Zid wrote:I really like the force org chart! However I'd love to see more armies be able to "manipulate" the chart to suit their specific needs. For example;

An IG player who takes X (being an HQ, I dunno any of theirs off hand so I can't name one) as an HQ choice may swap 2 Fast Attack slots for 1 additional Heavy Support slot. This must be announced prior to deployment. You may choose not to use this rule.

Something like that. I think every army should be allowed to take certain HQ's that allow swapping out certain parts of our force org to benefit others. So like Nids may swap out elite slots to get more troops perhaps, or chaos could swap out fast attack or troop choices to gain additional elite choices or something.

As it stands I think the FOC is fine, I just hate that some armys have certain "weak" slots that you never fill. I think it'd be neat to be able to trade em for something you might actually USE!

Instead of creating the system you have, Special Characters exist that allow specific units (ex: Sternguard with Pedro Kantor), to fill multiple roles (Sternguard become scoring units), or even count as alternate Force Org units (Dark Eldar have a special character that allows Wych squads to become Troops instead of Elites).

Hi Lanrak:

In any game, the designer makes a decision to either simulate or abstract a given element that is included (the also have the option of simply ignoring something).

In my case, I look at 40k as more of a board game, rather than a simulation because the scales and modeling are so far off from anything reality. So I'm willing to give 40k a lot of slack as far as abstracting things.

I think it is more appropriate for a non-realistic game to use abstracted rules, and more appropriate for a realistic game to use more simulationist rules.

To try and introduce strongly simulationist elements in what is otherwise heavily-abstracted causes a disconnect. It raises the question "why *this* instead of *that*".

A good example of this is TLOS - 40k doesn't need TLOS, and I was perfectly happy playing Magic Cylinder on a 2-D board with height levels. But as it's a *minis* wargame rather than a true board game, and TLOS removes some arguments, I'm OK with it.

So, getting back to the FOC, it's an abstraction of a TOE / OOB, so I don't have a problem with it. It's a good starting place that covers all "normal" games. Is it perfect, no. But when I play something much smaller, or much larger, there are different rules (or lack thereof), so it works out. Trying to tie FOC to a hard TOE / OOB simply isn't in the nature of a game like 40k which deliberately introduces a lot of room for player tailoring.

Hope this helps,

/John

Che-Vito wrote:

Zid wrote:I really like the force org chart! However I'd love to see more armies be able to "manipulate" the chart to suit their specific needs. For example;

An IG player who takes X (being an HQ, I dunno any of theirs off hand so I can't name one) as an HQ choice may swap 2 Fast Attack slots for 1 additional Heavy Support slot. This must be announced prior to deployment. You may choose not to use this rule.

Something like that. I think every army should be allowed to take certain HQ's that allow swapping out certain parts of our force org to benefit others. So like Nids may swap out elite slots to get more troops perhaps, or chaos could swap out fast attack or troop choices to gain additional elite choices or something.

As it stands I think the FOC is fine, I just hate that some armys have certain "weak" slots that you never fill. I think it'd be neat to be able to trade em for something you might actually USE!

Instead of creating the system you have, Special Characters exist that allow specific units (ex: Sternguard with Pedro Kantor), to fill multiple roles (Sternguard become scoring units), or even count as alternate Force Org units (Dark Eldar have a special character that allows Wych squads to become Troops instead of Elites).

Yeah, that works too HQ's modifying troop types and things makes sense (like a chaos Termi lord making 1 unit of termis a troop choice would make sense, for example). I just hate how restrictive the FOC is sometimes, especially when certain slots for certain armys are pretty damn useless

Hi JohnHwangDD.
Thanks for clarifying.
ALL table top wargames have to abstract things to a certain level.
However there are ways of keeping these absractions to simulate the players expectations.These tend to more intuitive.

I agree that 40k rules are written with heavy counter intuitive abstractions .And that any simple simulations look out of place in the rules.

The point I was trying to make was because the current FOC uses unit function to classifiy unit rarity , rather than actual unit rarity irrespective of function, the current FOC is MORE restrictive !
And can cause confusion!(When assault marines are taken as troops chioces can they use thier jump packs? etc...)

If there is a simpler more effective way to cover a function of a system ,to decide NOT to use it because its already in use in another company game is a bit counter productive.IMO.

The system used in WHFB is more straight forward and scaleable .
Therfore I belive it to be a better system to use than the one currently used by 40k.

Both are abstractions of a TO&E, but the WHFB system allows more options of configuration and player chioce.
(As its ONLY changes rarity in an army not fuctional decriptors.And alot of the 40k armies are more biased to singlular fuction,eg 'shooty' or 'assaulty '.)

I belive we both agree there are better methods, its just you dont see the need to change , where as I do.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Yeah. Tho there is a big difference due to technology / scale. 40k is a post-industrial game, so it's not like there's a manually-countable number Leman Russ tanks on the planet. It's not like Carnifexes are individually hatched rarely.

40k stuff appears on a forgeworld / hive world / craftworld / hive fleet / waagh scale. The numbers are vast, so a hundred men / bugs / fungi with a dozen tanks / beasts / constructs is a very small number.

If you say that a Waagh has a million Boyz, and Ard Boyz are very rare (1%), that's 10,000 Ard Boyz - plenty more than in a 40k engagement.

Fantasy models historical *European* warfare - not Asian warfare. So the numbers are relatively tiny and insignificant. Rare in those circumstances is still quite small, but even then, we find the Masque, Changeling and the Blue Scribes at nearly every Daemonic assault. Dragons and unbreakable War Engines are everywhere.

So, while the idea that things should be more limited isn't bad, I'm not sure that we're seeing it on the tabletop in a way that the game has evolved to accept.

Hi, JohnHwangDD.
It is not important how vast the total numbers are, in the background.
As it just like moveing up the command size of the TO&E.
Battalion -Regimental-Corps-Army etc.

EG if we assume a IG initial planet invasion force...
6 Infantry regiments,(full strenght appx 60,000 men.)2 artillery regiments(1000 guns), 5 tank battalions, ( full strenght 250 tanks,)etc.
The basic proportions of infantry-artillery -tanks is fixed.

So the proportion of units available to any size engagment is fixed.
In battles the unit types are mixed for mutual support.This gives the proportions that would be found in a 'standard engagment'.
This determines the basic proportions each type of unit can be used in a 'game army'.

The FOC should also concider the effects on game play.(An all tank-artillery force may not not be much fun to play-play against.)

My points are ..
Proportional representation in game SHOULD be scalable.
And balancing a game based on unit function is overly restrictive at the basic level.

TTFN
Lanrak.

And doesn't the FOC solve that by requiring Troops which aren't tanks/artillery?

Which would be the same whether you called them Core and reshuffled tanks/artillery as Special / Rare.

Yes, but the scaleable FOC makes players choose between two or more units and helps balance the game better at lower points values. For example, at 1500 points an IG player might have to choose between fielding either a Leman Russ Squadron or an Ordnance Battery because both of them would occupy his one rare slot. Now the rest of the list becomes more important because he has to make the concious trade off between direct and indirect fire in his rare slot. Again, just an example. It wouldn't take alot of work to tweak the different codices accordingly and I think it would help greatly balance the game across the board.

Here is a sample army breakdown.

Marine HQ

Chapter Master
Captain
Librarian
Chaplain
Master of Forge

Marine Core

Tactical Squad
Scout Squad

Marine Support
Assault Squad (count as "Core" if Army includes Captain with Jump Pack)
Bike Squadron (count as "Core" if Army includes Captain with Bike)
Scout Bike Squadron (count as "Core" if Army includes Captain with Bike)
Devestator Squad
Predator Squadron (includes Destructors, Annihilators, Vindicators)
Thunderfire Cannon
Tech Marine
Whirlwind
Attack Bike Squadrons
Landspeeder Squadrons
Dreadnoughts

Marine Elites
Terminator Squad
Assault Terminator Squad
Land Raiders

Remove Option to buy Land Raiders as dedicated transports

Now, I only took about ten minutes to type that out and think it through quickly. But I think that using the WHFB model as a base, you can see how it simultaneously makes people use more troop choices but also opens up lots of alternative builds. At less than 2000 points, a Space Marine player would have to choose between Terminators or a Land Raider. He would also have to make concious choices between mobile support choices or more static, but more shooty, support choices. It would also open up alot of army builds as a BA successor chapter could take a captain with a jumppack and then fill his core assault squads and make an all jump pack army.

So the problem with the 40k FOC is that 40k Support is split into Heavy and Fast?

No. The problem with the 40K force org chart is that it does not scale well to lower levels and that units that are supposed to be limited or game changing can be bought outside the force org chart. A Marine force can effectively have 4+ heavy support choices by purchasing a LR as a dedicated transport to supplement the three Predators bought out of the heavy choices.

And this is different from WFB all-cav Brets / Flying Circus / 6 WM Skaven / multi-Steg LM in what way?

*sigh*

Guys, you can't talk to a wall. John is intractable and he just doesn't 'get it' - a dangerous and frustrating combination if ever there was one.

I think a scaling FoC would be great for 40K. In fact, it's something we've been experimenting with in Revisited. So far it's only with Eldar, Orks and Tyranids, but so far the idea works pretty well. The more of one unit category type you bring, the more access you have to another category type, and then the more of that one you bring, the greater your access to even better stuff.

With the Eldar one, the most developed of the three so far, it scales all the way up to Apoc. The list allows for Revenant Titans and Scorpions and things like that without any special detachment rules or points requirements - you just have to bring the right amount of pre-requisites. Our aim is to have this work for all armies.

And the other great benefit here is that it allows armies to have their structure based in the fluff - Ork Warbands, Chaos Cults, the regimented structure of the Guard, actual Marine armies following the Codex, non-Codex Chapters, Eldar structure - rather than attempting to shoe-horn everything into the 2HQ/3Elite/6Troops/3FA/3HS system.

Hi all.
JohnHwangDD.
The difference is;-
WHFB has a good systems that have annomalies due to poor implementation by the dev team.(Human error.)

40k has annomalies because it has inferior* systems, and no matter what the dev team does it can not reach its full potential.(System error.)

Is this clear enough?
(*Functional efficiency of systems is NOT based on opinoin , but on measurable performance .)

TTFN
Lanrak.

i think 2nd edition had it right

manditory 25% of points on troops

up to 25% of allies, heavy, fat, hq, etc.

Percentages hurt some armies more than others. Some armies have really expensive troops (Deathwing). Some don't (Tau).

@Lanrak: if you say it's measurable (which I doubt), rather thanpure opinion (which I believe to be the case), please share...

And note: "I think WFB is twice as good as 40k" isn't a valid response!

Hi JohnHwangDD.
If you look at each system as an equasion of 'level of complication, vs complexity of function'.
Eg how easy the system is to understand vs how much stuff it covers.

Both methods are quite simple, current FOC has a 1 flow chart type diagram.
The WHFB option has a table, pv vs selections available.
Both take up the same num,ber of pages and are straight forward to explain and understand.

The current FOC only is effective at a set game size ,(1500 to 2000pts) as it fixes units to maximums of 2,6,3,3,3.
Any change in game size or special compositions need extra rules and explanations.

The WHFB scales to ANY game size, and special compositions are covered by the basic sytem as units simply become more or less rare.(You dont have to expand the number of 'slots', or re-brand unit function artificialy.)

The WHFB system covers more complexity at the same level of complication,therfore it is a more efficient system.

Oppinion is just which system you prefer.It doesnt make any difference to which system is more efficient .

Art is its own justification.The desire to create is all that is needed.
Systems are functional, they have measurable levels of efficiency.

Unfortunatley far to many people at GW towers think game development is an art form, and so by extension do not need any justification beyond thier own opinion.

Game systems ARE functional , and therefore NOT an art form.

TTFN
Lanrak.