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.

I think that unless you are playing a serious game or a tornament you might as well use whatever troops you want. If your playing a game with your mates its more fun to use your recently painted models or just the ones you like to use. It wouldnt overbalance the game because if you exploited the fact you could have an army made of just assasins for example noone will want to play you and you wont have any mates left.

Lanrak wrote:Eg how easy the system is to understand vs how much stuff it covers.

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,

It doesnt make any difference to which system is more efficient .

Well, let's talk about what's actually played.

40k plays primarily at two game sizes: 1500-2000, and 2500+. The FOC covers the 1500-2000 situation (and then some), and Apoc throwing the FOC completely out the window covers 2500+. Technically, the FOC covers up to 2500 pts, even 4,000 or 5,000 pts. It just does a less effective job below 1000 pts, or above 3000 pts. But to say that it doesn't cover is using an opinion based on personal judgement. For the games that are typically played, the 40k FOC works adequately, because that is what it is designed to do.

Now, let's talk about WFB. Here, the rules theoretically cover an arbitrarily large game size, however, this also has oddities and problem, whereby WFB isn't entirely effective. There are big steps in power and playability between 1999 vs 2000, or 2999 vs 3000. These aren't smooth or graduated transitions, and so the effectiveness suffers. And it's not uncommon for a 3k list to have fewer models and less core than a 2k list. This is why many WFB Comp systems use a points minimum / maximum above and beyond the basic slot count. But from a practical standpoint, WFB is equally narrow in application, focusing on games of 2000 to 2500 pts, which is effectively the same mono-FOC situation that 40k has.

So when you talk about efficiency, they're the same, using about the same amount of text to cover the same +/-250pt game sizes, but with 40k Apoc covering large games with even greater efficiency by not bothering with specific rules.


BTW, you're not going to claim that GW went through the trouble of playtesting the WFB FOC chart at all of the various game sizes, for the various armies, are you? That the game is as well-balanced for games in every range, are you?

IME of the last ten years, the sliding FOC chart for WHFB does appear to have been tested, and does work better at the less-common point sizes of 1000 & 2500 than does the 40k chart at 1000 and 2500.

Hi again.
JohnHwangDD.
By your own admission the 40k FOC fails to cover game sizes less than 1000pts or over 2500 pts that well.Yet the WHFB does better across all PV size games.(Wether by design or pure luck.)
Therfore the WHFB covers more than 40k system , ergo it is more efficient.

Also you ignored the problems cause by limited number 'slots ' not covering some composition options.And the possiblities of confusion caused by function based nomenclature for limiting composition.

You like 'everything 40k' because that your opinion and you are entitled to it.

But PLEASE do not put you opinions down as a valid argument to oppose factual conclusions on fuctional efficiency.

TTFN
Lanrak.

@Mannahnin: "better" is highly arguable. All it does is shift power balance around, and you'll have a difficult time "proving" that the WFB shift is "better" than the equivalent 40k shift.
____

@Lanrak: I didn't say it fails to cover - the basic 40k FOC can be played with as few as 500 pts, or over 3000 pts. However, at very small or large sizes, the balance changes. It is different, in the same way that the WFB balance is different. But to say that it doesn't work is patently false, and I certainly made no such claim. I said it was less efficient, which means that it works, but works differently. And certainly, it's no worse than how WFB changes power at different point levels.

I don't see these as problems. But if you see it as a problem, how do you explain how non-Core Specials can be taken as Core? Doesn't that present just as much of a nomenclature problem for the overly-literal simple-minded?

I don't like everything 40k, but the FOC isn't something that causes problems, because where the 40k FOC starts to show issues, it gets thrown out for Apoc, or is replaced for very small games. There are other issues that are far more pressing.

As for factual conclusions about efficiency, your argument holds no water.

If the WFB FOC works so well, why did GW make special rules for <1000 pt games of WFB? Why is that? Surely, if the WFB system is so good, they would just use the basic system as-is, and not apply any other restrictions.

Hi JohnHwangDD.
You may have mis read my post.
I said
'By your own admission the 40k FOC fails to cover game sizes less than 1000pts or over 2500 pts that well.Yet the WHFB does better across all PV size games.'
I simply pointed out compard to other systems 40k FOC was not that efficient at other game sizes.

You said,'
'I said it was less efficient, which means that it works, but works differently. And certainly, it's no worse than how WFB changes power at different point levels.'

So you agree with me that 40ks FOC IS less efficent than WHFBs system.

As a basic systyem (irrespective of how GW devs use it, ) WHFB is less restrictive than 40k FOC as it doesnt artificialy restrict units in an abstract way by 'number of slots based on function',and prevents counterintuitive allocation.

A basic composition system simply allocates rarity of units/elements in a force. The basic WHFB system achives this in a straight forward way.Therfore is a better system to use as reguards to efficiency.

But 40k FOC continuies the themes of the 40k rule set.
Take a very simple function, fail to define it in a comprehensive way, and rely on additional poorly defined systems to arrive at a simple function covered in the most complicated way!

So I can understand why you prefer 40ks FOC for 40k games.
Logic , common sense, well defined and comprehensive ideas are all BANNED from 40k games development.

TTFN
lanrak.

@Lanrak: I believe you need to read more clearly. I said that it was "no worse than WFB", which means that it is NOT less efficient than WFB's system. You appear to have mistakenly drawn a completely incorrect conclusion by ignoring a key word "no" in my comment.

As I noted before, WFB has large step-related balance problems, and you seem to gloss that over. Going 1 pt from 1999 to 2000 makes for a huge change of +5 slots in FOC, where this never occurs with the 40k FOC or the previous WFB5 %-based system. There are tradeoffs for this, and this detracts from the "efficiency" that you claim. The stepwise approach results in a huge power jump from 1999 to 2000, along with a typical reduction in army size.

With 40k's fixed FOC, and Troops-only Scoring rule, especially beyond 1000 pts or so, armies simply get larger as more points are added to the army. This smoothness is a virtue as well.

As I also noted, within any given 1000-pt band (e.g. 2000-2999) in WFB, the power shifts from higher-power at 2000 to higher-core at 2999.

Now, if you want to talk about a system that doesn't restrict units by slots, then you go back to a WFB5 system which is purely % allocation based. But to claim that the WFB system doesn't restrict by slots is patently false.

Still, I can see why you prefer WFB: presumed self-superiority based on puffery and arrogance.

Have a nice life,

/JKohn

HI JohnHwangDD.

I belive it is yo that needs to read more clearly.
This is a direct quote from your post.
'I said it was less efficient, which means that it works, but works differently. And certainly, it's no worse than how WFB changes power at different point levels.'
Emphasis mine.

Step related balance problems are due to poor implementation , not a problem with the basic system.(Band sizes can be reduced to smooth out jumps.)

With the additional rules EG 'troops only scoring only' the 40k FOC can be amended to provide a better system.But to work effectivly at a set PV band the 40k FOC, NEEDS extra rules that the WHFB system does not.

I posted.
''As a basic systyem (irrespective of how GW devs use it, ) WHFB is less restrictive than 40k FOC as it doesnt artificialy restrict units in an abstract way by 'number of slots based on function',and prevents counterintuitive allocation.

A basic composition system simply allocates rarity of units/elements in a force. The basic WHFB system achives this in a straight forward way.Therfore is a better system to use as reguards to efficiency. ''

Where did I claim that WHFB doesnt restrict by slots?
Apart from using % composition which can be a bit clumbersome.
Allocating 'slots to rarity' is the next most efficient method I am aware of.

Allocating slot to function , is artificialy restricting and abstract.

I will have a grand life, thanks!
TTFN
Lanrak.