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.

Because "Balance" is in the title of the thread, I'm taking it for granted that most are talking about matched play. I'm only posting here because I was kind of liking where Unit was going with bespoke FOC options... But then I started thinking about the different factors that would influence FOC from a narrative perspective:

The first is the character of the force in question- which is what I think Unit was getting at- and this is cool; people like this- it's things like Ravenwing, or Deathwing FOC exceptions and such. But it's not the only factor.

For some armies, you've got different sizes of standing forces- so Sisters can be organized by Missions, Commanderies and Preceptories. Missions have small rosters to choose from, Commanderies are company level and Preceptories are Chapter level.

If you're fielding a force that is derived from a mission, you're likely playing Combat Patrol or Incursion, and you might be taking ALL of your available forces to battle. If you're fielding a force derived from a Commandery, you likely have enough variety to field pretty much any type of detachment, and you likely aren't bringing the entire force to battle, even at the Onslaught level. Obviously, Preceptories can get away with bringing damn near anything.

But all of those choices can be influenced by the first factor, and the smaller the force from which the army is drawn, the more likely this is to occur. So for example, Argent Shroud likely have a higher concentration of Doms and Transports wherever they may be... But this is most likely to influence them at the Mission and Commandery level. At the mission level, you may find that you don't have a whole heck of a lot of troops to work with- likely a single MSU squad because even at the Mission level, Argent Shroud likely have a transport. If a Commandery based force field more than one detachment, it's pretty darned fluffy for one of them to be Outriders.

And then your final factor is mission choice. Think Planet Strike: if you're the defender, Heavies and Fortifications make a lot of sense; if you're the attacker, elites make more sense. And ALL of these factors exist in dynamic tension.

So the first factor could be represented by modifications to FOC from the dex.
The second factor is up to the controlling player.
The third factor would be FOC modifications based on the mission.

Now when you're thinking at that level of detail in order to create or maintain an immersive narrative, the flexibility of the detachment system allows you to account for ALL of those variables, despite the problems it may impose for balance. So let me end the post where I began: for matched play, or even play in other modes where balance is a priority, any of the options in the thread probably would work better than the detachment system. But given the necessities of immersive narrative play, the detachment system really hits the gold standard for telling YOUR story.

And keep in mind that the rules for Battleforging armies aren't exclusively a matched play phenomenon, so any changes to them would need to be made in such a way that it is clear they only apply in matched play.