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.

Basically, the Elites slot is nowadays a "Catch-all" for everything ranging from "Better Troops", to "Odd Ability Units", to "Heavy assault infantry." In the meantime, there are those odd solo characters whom have a checkered history of either being Elites, HQs, slotless, or some combination thereof. The Sanctioned Psyker was originally a Command Squad attachment, turned HQ, turned slotless HQ. Techmarines went from being Elites to a special slotless character, and Snikrot has gone from being an HQ, to a unit upgrade, to an Elite that takes no slot if he's also brought with Kommandos...Marbo just went from Elite to missing in action, alas.

It feels weird having these 'not-quite-leaders' being shuffled around because "HQ" and "Elite" don't fit their paradigm.

Basically, the idea is to create an extra FOC option, called "Specialists." A CAD may include 0-3 Specialists, and an AD may include 0-1 Specialists; a Specialist unit is defined as composed of a single Character, whom may not be joined by other Characters. Rules to give them cover/LoS bonuses when near friendly infantry units are a potential option.

>Potential Specialists among Armies:
-Chaos (of either stripe): Any of the assorted Cult or Daemon champions, given some minor tweaks really.
-Eldar: Individual Eldar Pathfinders, Bonesingers, etc.
-Orks: Mekboyz, Weirdboyz, Doks, everyone that isn't a Painboss/Big Mek/Warboss, but is an Oddboy of some form or fashion.
-Tau: Certain Fireblade-types (Darkstrider/etc) can go here. Kais with his Rail Rifle is another option.
-Tyranids: Zoanthropes/Malanthropes, Deathleaper, the Red Terror, the Parasite of Mortrex, etc.

Is the idea of having a tertiary FoC slot for solo specialists crazy, or would it be workable?

I like the idea, you could include such things as Sanguinary Priests, Chaplains, Warlocks etc.

I like the suggestion of putting snipers in there, try and make them functional and fluffy instead of sticking them in ten-man squads standing in formation.

I would prefer making them ICs to making them independent but get cover from friendly units, it'd require fewer rules while doing something similar.

Seems fine, but without special rules, does it really make any difference other than how things are organized?

@AnomanderRake: Existing sniper units don't really make sense in this slot outside of assassin types (who already lone wolf it and would be abusable if they were independent characters). Eldar rangers and marine scouts would certainly not see more use if their already tenuous usefulness was reduced by taking away a player's ability to use them as mandatory troops or limiting the number of them you can take. Illic would become much more susceptible to enemy fire. The only guys I can think of who might like to be moved here are ratlings as it would free up more elite slots for other things, but I'm not familiar enough with IG/AM to comment on how useful that would be.

Organization mostly, as well as making representing unusual experts feel less cumbersome.

Some models are more akin to attachments (Priests/etc), others akin to solos (Lone Wolves, Solitaires, etc). Another thought besides tweaking LOS mechanics is to give all specialists the following special rule:

Forlorn Hope: Specialists act in support of an army, providing auxilary support, and their survival is for the most part a secondary concern. Specialists without the Independent Character rule cannot serve as your Warlord do not yield First Blood when slain.

0-3 may be a bit restrictive...0-4 perhaps, with 0-2 for Allied Detachments? Lets brainstorm potential specialists, of the attached or solo variety.

For eldar, the following come to mind:

Warlocks: Attachable to various units. Serve a supporting role.

Illic: Though I'm not sure his price tag is really justifiable if he doesn't fill a mandatory HQ slot considering he's only killing something every other turn. Maybe homebrew a solo pathfinder as proposed above.

For dark eldar, I'd like to see some old school lesser haemonculi. The current haemonculus is sort of a fusion between 5th editions normal and ancient haemonculi. Their pricetag isn't unreasonable, but some sort of inexpensive PFP booster akin to what you could get in the 5th edition book might be helpful.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I like the suggestion of putting snipers in there, try and make them functional and fluffy instead of sticking them in ten-man squads standing in formation.

I would prefer making them ICs to making them independent but get cover from friendly units, it'd require fewer rules while doing something similar.

I second this. Snipers are not the units to be placed on the field in teams of ten. Specialist really fits that. And the IC does make sense as far as clearing up the peripheral

Can we make a slot called "Useless" and toss csm possessed, warp talons, mutilator, defiler, Lucious, etc the whole CSM codex in there?

Great Idea - too many codices have way too many units per FOC slot. I added some additional ones


Command Support - 0-4 - For those 1 man units that generally have some buff abilities for your other slot units. Like Chaplains, crypteks, etc. -
Specialist - 0-2 - Snipers, infiltrators, scouts, assassin type units
Aerial Support - 0-3 - flyers only

I added Command Support and Aerial to your Specialist because I think that after checking just the Xenos factions codices there are just too many units competing for few select spaces. Rough list, not including FW -
Xenos:
Tau - 8HQ, 3 Elites, 2 Troops, 6 FA, 4 Heavy, 0 LOW
Necrons - 11HQ, 2 Troops, 7 Elites, 4 FA, 7 Heavy, 3 LOW
Orks - 9HQ, 6 Elites, 2 Troops, 8 FA, 7 Heavy, 2 LOW
Eldar - 13HQ, 6 Elites, 5 Troops, 6 FA, 8 Heavy, 0 LOW
DE - 6 HQ, 6 Elites, 2 Troops, 7 FA, 4 Heavy, 0 LOW
Nids - 6 HQ, 7 Elites, 6 Troops, 7FA, 9 Heavy, 0 LOW

I don't even want to look at the Imperium and Chaos but I'm sure that they are even worse off.

Under an updated FOC I would see Tau as:
No slot - Crisis bodyguard
HQ - Farsight, Shadowsun, Aun'va, Aun'shi, Battlesuit Commander
Command Support - Fireblade, Darkstrider, Ethereal
Specialist - Stealthsuits, Koot Squad, Sniper Drones
Elite - Crisis Team, Riptide
Troop - Fire Warriors, Pathfinders
Fast Attack - Piranha, Vespid, Drone Squad, Devilfish
Heavy - Hammerhead, Skyray, Broadside Team
Aerial Support - Razorshark, Sunshark
LOW -

The more I look at this the more I love it. GW needs to move to this and get rid of unbound. Give people an FOC that lets them use a variety of units from their codex when playing a game.
It would cut down on spamming and some of the cheese that comes with it.

I mean, with all the formations coming out it, applying this modified FOC just makes sense.

No matter how much you change wh40k for the better, Players that want to win will spam the most cost effective or deadliest units. We are like mouse, we will find the cheese and spam it!

Imagine an army or specialist.

Unbound. Its a thing.

 WarbossDakka wrote:
Unbound. Its a thing.

So is FOC Slot saturation. Also, Unbound has a few drawbacks to using it that could be dealbreakers depending on the player/venue/tournament/etc.
Personally, I think splitting Specialist units into their own slot is a very good idea. It would allow for more flexibility in list writing, and let some rarely-seen but good units that are overshadowed by other units see use.

 Mr. Oddity wrote:

 WarbossDakka wrote:
Unbound. Its a thing.

So is FOC Slot saturation. Also, Unbound has a few drawbacks to using it that could be dealbreakers depending on the player/venue/tournament/etc.
Personally, I think splitting Specialist units into their own slot is a very good idea. It would allow for more flexibility in list writing, and let some rarely-seen but good units that are overshadowed by other units see use.

I agree 100%. OP's idea is excellent.

Rather than list all sorts of function for units to have slots in the F.O.C.

Why not just class the units types by how rare they are in the army?
EG
Common, are the units the force has the most of.
Specialist, are the units that have special support function to support the Common units.
Restricted units are the units that are the most limited in the force due to several reasons..

So force selection is like this.
Pick the HQ unit of your choice.(The HQ unit determines what units are Common , Specialist or Restricted for that list.)
Select 2 to 8 Common units,
For every 2 Common units you may select 1 Specialist unit.
For every 2 Specialist units you may take 1 Restricted unit,

The current classifications (apart from HQ ) , are completely removed and ignored.

So units can be classed As common specialist or restricted, depending on What HQ is selected.

This allows more themed lists to be selected using the same F.O.C.
Which could allow the old Chapters,Regiments, Klans, Craftworlds, Kabals etc, to be represented.

So how do I play 3 Imperial Knights if each one are restricted?

@Filch.
Pick the HQ that lets you take Knights as Specialist units.If there are no approved lists that let you do this..

Play massive (multi-player) battles with your friends that use 2 or more F.O.C..(Apoc type games.)

Or just use 'unbound' lists in scenario driven games.

The idea of Point values and F.O.C is JUST to allow enough balance for fun pick up games.

The current level of imbalance in 40k , often leads to negative experiences for new players in random pick up games.

If you use HQ to theme the various lists in each codex.(I am thinking 6 to 10 various lists per codex.)
You can build in actual benefits and restrictions that are fluffy and 'intuitive' for each one.

Trying to use JUST Point Values to restrict availability in lists does not work that well.
As it leads to identical units having different costs in different lists.Which leads to the obvious imbalance the game currently displays.

Lanrak wrote:
Rather than list all sorts of function for units to have slots in the F.O.C.

Why not just class the units types by how rare they are in the army?
EG
Common, are the units the force has the most of.
Specialist, are the units that have special support function to support the Common units.
Restricted units are the units that are the most limited in the force due to several reasons..

So force selection is like this.
Pick the HQ unit of your choice.(The HQ unit determines what units are Common , Specialist or Restricted for that list.)
Select 2 to 8 Common units,
For every 2 Common units you may select 1 Specialist unit.
For every 2 Specialist units you may take 1 Restricted unit,

The current classifications (apart from HQ ) , are completely removed and ignored.

So units can be classed As common specialist or restricted, depending on What HQ is selected.

This allows more themed lists to be selected using the same F.O.C.
Which could allow the old Chapters,Regiments, Klans, Craftworlds, Kabals etc, to be represented.

Basically like how Fantasy has their army building set up of Core, Special and Rare units? Honestly wouldn't be too terrible, but would further just cement as 40k as 'Fantasy in space'. Though GW seems to edge closer to that line more and more. It would be nice if they could give 40K it's own identity and not mess it up in the process. They seem too scared to sway too far to one side. Too much like fantasy, or too different.

Yes it is similar but not the same as WHFB method.(Different names and not % based.)

I can not understand why GW keep all the mechanics/resolution methods from the WHFB rules that do not work that well with 40k.
And then throw out the ideas from WHFB that work well in any game, including 40k.

because they suck at writing rules. We have players that demand 90 pages of fluff in a rule book codex of 120 pages. I blame the players who rational, "i am only playing 40k for the flavor."

I like this idea of having a specialist, though TBH I am pretty happy with the current FOC as well.

@Rippy.
What other army building methods have you used other than 40Ks F.O.C?

Wyldhunt wrote:
For dark eldar, I'd like to see some old school lesser haemonculi. The current haemonculus is sort of a fusion between 5th editions normal and ancient haemonculi. Their pricetag isn't unreasonable, but some sort of inexpensive PFP booster akin to what you could get in the 5th edition book might be helpful.

I like the haemonculus where he is. The way the codex is setup you have three different factions in one with three different play styles. But the DE have so many good choices in the form of all the awesome HQs that were taken out of the codex. The Duke, the Baron, Lady Malys. Even Kheradruakh (or however you spell it), as the Marbo of the Dark Eldar, should definitely be a specialist, by the description of the slot in the original post.

So, yes, I agree with OP.