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 definitely agree, but so far I haven't statted enough units to need anything else.

Objectives are rolled for at the start of the game - in number and in type. Some are physical tokens that you collect points for being close to, such as mines or satellites. Some are actual objective goals, like "Destroy three units on a single turn" or "Hold 2 other objectives for the entire game" - each assigned a points value. Players also get a small number of points for killing other units.

Deployment scenarios are done similar to 40k where there are a number of ways to arrange the board and terrain before hand, a number of ways to place token objectives and a number of ways to pick table edges or corners for units to arrive or begin on.

Back to points and FOC however, the intent is that a player over-tweaking his list for 'synergies' is either giving up the ability to score as well, giving up board presence, or giving up health//damage per turn. Instead of "I'm going to take 3 Riptides because that's FOC allowance," I would prefer "I'm only going to take 3 Riptides because I need to equip my firewarriors with shield drones."

Edit: I would also prefer "I'm going to take 8 riptides because I have the models and it fills out all my points" over "I'm going to take 8 because the FOC is 8."

The number of riptides is similar, but the reasons and the options available aren't - and sometimes intent and availability are what makes armybuilding fun.

Aha that makes much more sense!
And I can see we are thinking along similar lines with objectives missions /deployments etc.

However, current 40k rules are written to drive people to have to buy new models/units to get the most effective synergies/points cost effectiveness.
With the new rules I believe this would be minimized, and players would be collecting armies based on prefered themes and play styles.

An that maybe a little bit of restriction that forces decision making in army composition might be a good thing?

Restriction is by player choice - if you want to play a more 'normalized' game, simply request fewer support points for it.

The end goal of the game, once the core rules and a few factions are fleshed out and confirmed for fun, is that I intend to flesh out multi-battle campaigns; this is why support points and points from gameplay are going to be tied in together.

Basically, I want to release playtested sets of overarching objectives and goals, where points earned in battles can be used to purchase new units and upgrades in between each battle.

It's going to use some "Risk" board logistics, where players move tokens representing different parts of their armies, and have to split their forces to move them around cleverly outside of battles - something like "each player gets 1000/300 points to start begin placing them on the board now, here's cards representing your deployment zones."

This will also (hopefully) make fast units and abilities like deepstrike, flying, and infiltration more interesting as borders won't be the only things to defend anymore.