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.

 Haighus wrote:
I can sort of see the argument with Obliterators, but they are very versatile units that are essentially beefy Terminators.

They were three lascannons for marginally less than a four lascannon devastator squad, the ability to move and shoot alone probably made them the stronger option.

Though we didn't play many 'special' missions locally so the FoC always felt like something that tried to counter excessive skew and alpha-strike lists, with varying success.

With how many poorly-distributed ways there were to bypass restrictions GW could probably have just lumped the fast and elite units together and let players pick any one (non character/monster/vehicle) from the set to be an extra troops choice, with just the heavy slot locked down. Still a restriction of course but even one extra heavy slot or a way to circumvent them back then could be telling.

A.T. wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
I can sort of see the argument with Obliterators, but they are very versatile units that are essentially beefy Terminators.

They were three lascannons for marginally less than a four lascannon devastator squad, the ability to move and shoot alone probably made them the stronger option.

Weren't they restricted to "one of each weapon" or something like that back then? Or maybe, different weapon each turn? I feel like saying they were three mobile Lascannons isn't quite accurate.

A.T. wrote:
With how many poorly-distributed ways there were to bypass restrictions GW could probably have just lumped the fast and elite units together and let players pick any one (non character/monster/vehicle) from the set to be an extra troops choice, with just the heavy slot locked down. Still a restriction of course but even one extra heavy slot or a way to circumvent them back then could be telling.

I think the separation (elites and fast attack) came from the right place. I'm not sure being able to spam even more Necron Destroyers or Immortals (back when they were Elite) would have been a net positive for pick-up games.

I also think the way that the FOC restrictions came down a bit differently for different factions helped instill more flavor. Like the way Eldar Jetbikes, Shining Spears and Vypers were distributed about the FOC. They were all "fast" units, but because they weren't all "Fast Attack" it meant that Eldar could lean into their speed in a faction appropriate manner.

 a_typical_hero wrote:

I think there are a few nuances inbetween "I would like to take more of x, because there is some fluff blurb that says some armies form their core with it" and "take whatever you want, but not more than 3 of the same".

After 37 years of novel and codexes releases, not really. You can find lore blurbs to justify pretty much every army composition outside of spamming some super unique units.

I mean, IG Tank spam? Armoured companies have been part of the lore since forever.

Tyranid Nidzilla? Crusher Stampede but also we do have lore about at least one Behemoth splinter fleet that really likes spamming monsters.

Eldar wraith construct spam? Iyanden.

So either you have a dozen lists for each army in the game, or you recognize the FOC is antiquated even from a lore wise pov and the few units that shouldn't be spammed lore wise would be better served with some bespoke limitations.

 Tyran wrote:

So either you have a dozen lists for each army in the game, or you recognize the FOC is antiquated even from a lore wise pov and the few units that shouldn't be spammed lore wise would be better served with some bespoke limitations.

I think the issue is more of a balance and gameplay experience one rather than a lore one. Sure, those extreme armies can exist in the lore, but when the habit is pick-up-games, it's nice not to be blindsided by some horrible skew. And if you're just playing with friends, then you're more free to go wild with the force org anyways.

Though of course, in the current setup Marines can build a list of 9 Land Raiders or whatever the points fit.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I'm not fully following. Can you elaborate on that? By "each non-Battleline," do you mean the old force org slots? (FA, HS, Elites, etc?) If so, how do you address the issue of thematic, not-broken combinations being prevented by that sort of limitation? See previous example about vypers and shining spears competing for FA slots in a Saim-Hann list. And what are the "minimum slots" we're talking about in this context? Are we just talking about unlocking additional duplicates of the FOC if you take even more troops?

I would say that by 'non-battleline', I mean the various support assets - FA, HS, Elites - as a category. You can have X of that, or you can swap what is Battleline. I'm sorry I'm not communicating my ideas well, but I do think the new platoon system for Bolt Action 3E does it pretty well.

This strongly reminds me of the Helix Army construction system used by Firestorm Planetfall. A combination of required units and optional units taken as groups is an excellent way to balance a game since it make it harder to avoid "bad" units while taking only "good" units. It's not unlike 7th ed Formations of Formations. The big difference is you don't get advantages in this type of army construction, just requirements.

If a more structured, but still free-form structure is desired, one need only look at the new Age of Sigmar army construction rules. Regiments of units structured around thematic heroes gives you few very specific abilities/advantages in the game that are not extra rules tied to units/models.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Weren't they restricted to "one of each weapon" or something like that back then? Or maybe, different weapon each turn? I feel like saying they were three mobile Lascannons isn't quite accurate.

3.0 obliterators had the one weapon each limit, had to remain stationary to use heavy weapons and couldn't ever charge. 0-1 heavy support slot, 3-6 models - didn't even have plasmaguns back then.

3.5 moved them to elites, dropped all the restrictive rules and made them toughness 5 and 5++, though later errata-ed back down to T4(5).

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think the issue is more of a balance and gameplay experience one rather than a lore one. Sure, those extreme armies can exist in the lore, but when the habit is pick-up-games, it's nice not to be blindsided by some horrible skew.

Especially in a game where your list is built in a vacuum, without any knowledge of what your opponent or the mission will be. If you wanted to play a scenario with your friends where one side consists of eight Marine characters and a half-dozen Thunderfire cannons, you were always free to do so, but such an army composition wasn't appropriate for pick-up games. The FOC had a couple of functions, but one of them was to limit how far you could skew your list away from the core structure of a reinforced infantry company.

The fact that the game didn't allow you to take an armored company didn't mean it was failing to appropriately model its lore, it just meant that that type of list was outside the intended scope of the game, no different from how Epic won't let you take all aircraft or how Kill Team won't let you take tanks. When they did write a bespoke list that let you play an armored company in 40K, it came with a laundry list of special rules intended to curb the obvious advantage such a heavy skew represented.

'It exists in the lore' does not automatically mean 'it should be an option for pick-up games and competitive play'. Restrictions are important for balance, and are the easiest thing to ignore when playing narrative games with like-minded friends.

 catbarf wrote:
The fact that the game didn't allow you to take an armored company didn't mean it was failing to appropriately model its lore, it just meant that that type of list was outside the intended scope of the game, no different from how Epic won't let you take all aircraft or how Kill Team won't let you take tanks. When they did write a bespoke list that let you play an armored company in 40K, it came with a laundry list of special rules intended to curb the obvious advantage such a heavy skew represented.

Thank you.

this concept that "because it exists in the fluff and you can't bring it, therefore FOC bad and bring what you want" is tiring, but some people won't let it go.

The limitations offered bring a challenge to list building in itself, and gives structure to armies and games. If you filled out your Heavy supports in a heavy themed army, then you have to find other things to provide firepower, whether in elites, heavy support or troops.

The extra FOC's can even offer fluffy rules and specialties for an army represented in the game too, such as the 7th ed skitarii FOC that provided scouting and crusader USR's, or the cult mechanicus FOC that provided extra canticle choices.

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Some level of restrictions on what you take beyond rule of 3 made the game more interesting imho.
Limiting the number of elite/specialist units was good and meant that units like intercessors actually filled a role in the army list

You should take units because the units fill a role, not because you just can’t take what you actually want to.

sure let’s take an army full of terminators and VGVs! Makes total sense for nothing but the 1st company to make up an entire strike force….

But otherwise a lot of people have been complaining that terminators don’t feel ‘special’ (whatever that means) and I think most of it has to do with the lack FOC, when your whole army is made up elites/specialists, why would terminators feel special in your own army? Why would they feel special against your opponent’s army when it too is also full of elite/specialist units?

FOCs were gamed and there were always armies that fared more efficient within the FOC structure.

Personally, I prefer the rule of 3 and one model must be a Warlord to build a current army. Armies on the table really look and feel like 40K armies which initially surprised me.

Sarigar wrote:
FOCs were gamed and there were always armies that fared more efficient within the FOC structure.

Personally, I prefer the rule of 3 and one model must be a Warlord to build a current army. Armies on the table really look and feel like 40K armies which initially surprised me.

What does a ‘40K army’ look like exactly?

Flawed implementation of a decebt idea, Troops should be the backbone of most armies. I think the biggest flaw might be bad balance with some slots having several undercosted units and other slots having none, leading to always filling out Elites or Heavy Support for a faction in every list and overcosted units in the competitive slots feeling even worse because you aren't replacing your B team from Fast Attack with your C team from Elites but your A team from Elites with your C team Elites.

I don't think cheating the force org makes sense, you might as well not have it at all, if White Scars can spam bikes then why can't my custom Necron Dynasty spam bikes? It's not like these themed options were limited for balance reasons as they weren't really tested properly, so might as well let the cat all the way out of the bag instead of having just a dozen ways to break the rules and only for select factions (mostly Space Marines).

I don't think units were in the right places a lot of codexes and it being based on fluff seems wrong. Instead, I think there should be hard and reasonable rules for what makes a unit what, like Heavy Support being vehicles and monsters, Fast Attack being jump pack and bike units, Elites being expensive infantry, Troops being cheap infantry. There should not be 50pt Terminators in Troops for Custodes and 40pt Terminators in Elites for Space Marines. The force org should prevent spamming vehicles, it cannot do that if you have vehicles in both Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support.

Themed armies like vehicle columns should require consent from the opponent since it's very likely to create a skewed unfun game.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Sarigar wrote:
FOCs were gamed and there were always armies that fared more efficient within the FOC structure.

Personally, I prefer the rule of 3 and one model must be a Warlord to build a current army. Armies on the table really look and feel like 40K armies which initially surprised me.

What does a ‘40K army’ look like exactly?

I guess it depends on wich faction & the player behind it.
Ex: The most recent force I put on the table was Custodes:
Shield Capt on dawneagle x2
Dawneagle bikes x3
Dawneagle bikes x2
Dawneagle bikes x2
Culexus Assassin x1
Hellverin knight x1
Guardian Drone (legends, Unaligned) x1
Looks like a jetbike mounted force with several supporting units to me....

If I may, I think the general concept of a FOC is a good one - but over time I've become less wedded to the idea that it needs to be a one-size-fits-all approach.

As has been previously mentioned, the HQ/Elites/Troops/FA/HS(/Fortification/Aircraft/LoW) structure works well enough for Space Marines, but can lead to issues with other factions. Over time, the Elites area for most armies grew at a high rate, as it served as a bit of a dumping ground for units that didn't fit in Troops/FA/HS.

As a result, I think I'd like to propose something that returns structure to army-building, but doesn't try to force armies into a structure that doesn't work for them.

Come up with categories that suit an individual army - we might keep the existing paradigm for SM, but maybe Tyranids have Synapse/Vanguard/Swarms/Big Bugs (very rough, off the cuff idea). Even for SM, I might want to add "Specialists" as a unit category, so things which aren't true Elite units could be shunted sideways into this new category. I seem to recall Scouts are in Elites now for C:SM, which doesn't make much sense for the trainees - but they'd make sense in a Specialist slot.

Keep Battleline off the datasheets, however, and have that as a USR that doubles how many of that unit you can take and increases the OC by 1 (assuming OC sticks around).

Some categories (like Fortification and Lord of War) might end up being universal. I've not got a problem with that.

Keep the detachment idea from 10th, but give each a FOC that uses the slots/categories for that particular Codex, and specifies which units are Battleline in that detachment.

This way you're getting armies that look more like what a given detachment is "meant" to look like, without binding everyone to a FOC structure that doesn't necessarily work for that army.

Someone is likely to complaint about "muh agency" now - well, restrictions on what you can do are good for a game, compared to it being an out-and-out free-for-all on army construction.

+ + +

Unrelated point, but I seem to recall that the rule of 3 doesn't scale any more. You can take 3 of something at 1k, and still only 3 of something at 3k (if we just look at the scale of games actively covered in the rulebook). I'd much rather see that return to a sliding scale, so for every full thousand points you're building your list towards, you can take one additional unit - so 2 at 1k, 3 and 2k & 4 at 3k, with Battleline doubling that limit.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Sarigar wrote:
FOCs were gamed and there were always armies that fared more efficient within the FOC structure.

Personally, I prefer the rule of 3 and one model must be a Warlord to build a current army. Armies on the table really look and feel like 40K armies which initially surprised me.

What does a ‘40K army’ look like exactly?

Hard to explain. If you played during 6th and 7th, it became clear what a 40K army did not look like.

At one point, my Eldar army would also include a Riptide and Imperial Bastion which was quite common during that time period. That is what I would describe as an Eldar army not looking like an Eldar army, thus, not look like a 40K army. This was a time where GW was still using the FOC but expanded it a bit.

Seeing Azrael lead a blob of Imperial Guardsmen with attached Wolves from the Space Wolf codex is what I would describe as not looking like a 40K army. However, folks gamed the FOC which concocted such a unit combination.

Sarigar wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Sarigar wrote:
FOCs were gamed and there were always armies that fared more efficient within the FOC structure.

Personally, I prefer the rule of 3 and one model must be a Warlord to build a current army. Armies on the table really look and feel like 40K armies which initially surprised me.

What does a ‘40K army’ look like exactly?

Hard to explain. If you played during 6th and 7th, it became clear what a 40K army did not look like.

At one point, my Eldar army would also include a Riptide and Imperial Bastion which was quite common during that time period. That is what I would describe as an Eldar army not looking like an Eldar army, thus, not look like a 40K army. This was a time where GW was still using the FOC but expanded it a bit.

Seeing Azrael lead a blob of Imperial Guardsmen with attached Wolves from the Space Wolf codex is what I would describe as not looking like a 40K army. However, folks gamed the FOC which concocted such a unit combination.

These examples have nothing to do with the force organization chart and everything to do with broken, ill-thought-out allies rules.

 Kothra wrote:

Sarigar wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Sarigar wrote:
FOCs were gamed and there were always armies that fared more efficient within the FOC structure.

Personally, I prefer the rule of 3 and one model must be a Warlord to build a current army. Armies on the table really look and feel like 40K armies which initially surprised me.

What does a ‘40K army’ look like exactly?

Hard to explain. If you played during 6th and 7th, it became clear what a 40K army did not look like.

At one point, my Eldar army would also include a Riptide and Imperial Bastion which was quite common during that time period. That is what I would describe as an Eldar army not looking like an Eldar army, thus, not look like a 40K army. This was a time where GW was still using the FOC but expanded it a bit.

Seeing Azrael lead a blob of Imperial Guardsmen with attached Wolves from the Space Wolf codex is what I would describe as not looking like a 40K army. However, folks gamed the FOC which concocted such a unit combination.

These examples have nothing to do with the force organization chart and everything to do with broken, ill-thought-out allies rules.

Well, you have to look at army building holistically...

 vict0988 wrote:
Flawed implementation of a decebt idea, Troops should be the backbone of most armies. I think the biggest flaw might be bad balance with some slots having several undercosted units and other slots having none, leading to always filling out Elites or Heavy Support for a faction in every list and overcosted units in the competitive slots feeling even worse because you aren't replacing your B team from Fast Attack with your C team from Elites but your A team from Elites with your C team Elites.

I don't think cheating the force org makes sense, you might as well not have it at all, if White Scars can spam bikes then why can't my custom Necron Dynasty spam bikes? It's not like these themed options were limited for balance reasons as they weren't really tested properly, so might as well let the cat all the way out of the bag instead of having just a dozen ways to break the rules and only for select factions (mostly Space Marines).

I don't think units were in the right places a lot of codexes and it being based on fluff seems wrong. Instead, I think there should be hard and reasonable rules for what makes a unit what, like Heavy Support being vehicles and monsters, Fast Attack being jump pack and bike units, Elites being expensive infantry, Troops being cheap infantry. There should not be 50pt Terminators in Troops for Custodes and 40pt Terminators in Elites for Space Marines. The force org should prevent spamming vehicles, it cannot do that if you have vehicles in both Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support.

Themed armies like vehicle columns should require consent from the opponent since it's very likely to create a skewed unfun game.

For that last paragraph I don’t think there’s a problem with spamming vehicles.
I don’t see any problem with ‘spamming’ vehicles, spamming tanks and super heavies gets problematic fast though.

I don’t think anyone is going to complain about 6 scout sentinels, 6 armored sentinels, and 6 tauroxes. Now 6 russes, and 2 or 3 baneblades most would agree is a problematic list for casual games without a heads up.

 Gert wrote:
I understand what folks are saying with regard to some missions in 3rd making the force org work but doesn't that kind of not prove the point that it's not actually needed?

If force org only works as a balancing factor if changes are made to the standard chart depending on the mission, then why does a force org chart need to be a thing?
Army and unit restrictions can still be implemented without a chart telling you how many bikes or tanks you can take in a list.

On the other hand, the force org can allow for interesting ways in army building such as with Solar Auxilia in HH with Tercios or for you 40k types Guard platoons.
But even then Tercios are more than just taking multiple units in one slot, they have different interactions between those units and other special rules or wargear all of which would still work without a force org.

This kinda feels like the point I was making, about the force org not being the sole method which balanced unit slot selection, but taking kind of the 'opposite' lesson from it. Where as I see it as simply one of the levers which balanced what people took in lists (units have a points cost, units have a slot cost, and in addition units may not be able to deploy in initially to have advantageous positions / may be forced onto the table rather t1 and exposed to attack before they can act / may not be able to use their deep-striking and such to get where they want to go).

My question to this is, how do you feel the force org failed in this regard?

In a simple example, as stated, quite a few missions restricted your ability to deploy the Heavy Support slot, meaning your big guns lost at least one turn of shooting due to not being on the table and probably 2+ due to not being where you wanted them to be and much heavier restrictions on firing heavy weapons while moving. That was a factor of balance, using the force org to restrict which units could deploy when and how. Imo that's good balance, making players have to recognize various opportunity costs in relation to their list building.

Furthermore, how would you elumate that without a force org chart? Restricting Heavy Support the slot is easy, anything there gets restricted. But without it you'd just have to list every single unit that used to be heavy support to get the same effect, and that wouldn't be future proof.

Now whether or not those kind of deployment restrictions are good is another discussion in and of itself, though I'd posit they're unquestionably beneficial given the decade-or-so of extreme lethality we've had.

In theory, you could give every unit that used to be Heavy Support a specific keyword that a scenario could target - but at that point, why not have the slot?

 Dysartes wrote:
In theory, you could give every unit that used to be Heavy Support a specific keyword that a scenario could target - but at that point, why not have the slot?

This would be the modern 40k version- units get a role keyword like battleline (which I think is broadly the Troops equivalent). I'd expect things to be a bit more vague though, you could have Character, Battleline, Strike, and Support keywords or something. That would provide a lot of the functionality of the old FOC in combination with the rule of 3.

To make it worthwhile GW would need to put more effort into mission design though, and actively want to reduce game lethality.

I'm not really sure mission based limitations work practically.

Maybe in a Tournament with people who are really serious about trying to win the whole thing.

But I can't have been alone in meeting up for a game, rolling up a mission, going "that doesn't work for my list/my opponent's list. Lets just play another".

Its a bit like the whole "why do people insist on symmetrical boards, L-shaped ruins, etc etc". Mainly because it works.

I've played a lot of asymmetrical scenarios - but often one player has an overwhelming advantage to the point where they can't lose unless they deliberately try. If the dice are not on the underdog's side, its often a complete rout. After you've done it a few times, it just isn't fun.

Back in 8th (a little more recent) I think you had that mission that turned off invuls in the centre of the map (or all objectives, I can't quite remember). You might say that's just an interesting quirk - but since it had massive effect on some armies, and almost none on others, it didn't really feel very good.

"Don't pick a unit because there's a 1/X chance you'll roll up a mission where they are bad" isn't compelling to me - or I imagine most other people. I can just concede those games and then set up for a "real" game of 40k.

 Kothra wrote:

Sarigar wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Sarigar wrote:
FOCs were gamed and there were always armies that fared more efficient within the FOC structure.

Personally, I prefer the rule of 3 and one model must be a Warlord to build a current army. Armies on the table really look and feel like 40K armies which initially surprised me.

What does a ‘40K army’ look like exactly?

Hard to explain. If you played during 6th and 7th, it became clear what a 40K army did not look like.

At one point, my Eldar army would also include a Riptide and Imperial Bastion which was quite common during that time period. That is what I would describe as an Eldar army not looking like an Eldar army, thus, not look like a 40K army. This was a time where GW was still using the FOC but expanded it a bit.

Seeing Azrael lead a blob of Imperial Guardsmen with attached Wolves from the Space Wolf codex is what I would describe as not looking like a 40K army. However, folks gamed the FOC which concocted such a unit combination.

These examples have nothing to do with the force organization chart and everything to do with broken, ill-thought-out allies rules.

Clearly not related.

[img]

Tyel wrote:
I'm not really sure mission based limitations work practically.

Maybe in a Tournament with people who are really serious about trying to win the whole thing.

But I can't have been alone in meeting up for a game, rolling up a mission, going "that doesn't work for my list/my opponent's list. Lets just play another".

Its a bit like the whole "why do people insist on symmetrical boards, L-shaped ruins, etc etc". Mainly because it works.

I've played a lot of asymmetrical scenarios - but often one player has an overwhelming advantage to the point where they can't lose unless they deliberately try. If the dice are not on the underdog's side, its often a complete rout. After you've done it a few times, it just isn't fun.

Back in 8th (a little more recent) I think you had that mission that turned off invuls in the centre of the map (or all objectives, I can't quite remember). You might say that's just an interesting quirk - but since it had massive effect on some armies, and almost none on others, it didn't really feel very good.

"Don't pick a unit because there's a 1/X chance you'll roll up a mission where they are bad" isn't compelling to me - or I imagine most other people. I can just concede those games and then set up for a "real" game of 40k.

Firstly, I think casual pick-up games are the main reason 40k drifted away from having all those missions included in the main rulebook. It doesn't work well unless your area tends to bring more than just a single 1500pt or 2000pt army,as you point out. If a force is built to the standard FOC and the player has no extra units, then switching to a different FOC on the fly to play a different mission type may be impossible without dropping the points total a lot. But if you plan ahead a bit (say as part of a campaign), that is a completely different kettle of fish and you might be able to select the most appropriate units from a larger force. Here, flexible units are genuinely more useful if there is uncertainty over the mission type and your campaign roster is relatively limited.

But for your second point, if you look at those missions from 3rd and 4th, a lot of thought has clearly gone into making actual asymetric scenarios work, by doing things like reducing alpha strike lethality for the player with first turn or making the side with a tougher time have easier win conditions. For example, in the rearguard mission, the defender wins if they have any surviving units greater than 12" from a board edge, whereas the attacker has to kill all those units and have at least one scoring unit left on the board. This is to balance that the attacker gets twice the units in rearguard (note half the attackers force starts in reserve and only arrives on turn 4). The attacker also gets first turn, but has to move their army onto the board (reducing firepower in 3rd/4th) and the enemy has hidden deployment with obstacles and a bunch of booby traps or minefields. It is a neat example of an asymmetric mission.

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think the issue is more of a balance and gameplay experience one rather than a lore one. Sure, those extreme armies can exist in the lore, but when the habit is pick-up-games, it's nice not to be blindsided by some horrible skew.

Especially in a game where your list is built in a vacuum, without any knowledge of what your opponent or the mission will be. If you wanted to play a scenario with your friends where one side consists of eight Marine characters and a half-dozen Thunderfire cannons, you were always free to do so, but such an army composition wasn't appropriate for pick-up games. The FOC had a couple of functions, but one of them was to limit how far you could skew your list away from the core structure of a reinforced infantry company.

The fact that the game didn't allow you to take an armored company didn't mean it was failing to appropriately model its lore, it just meant that that type of list was outside the intended scope of the game, no different from how Epic won't let you take all aircraft or how Kill Team won't let you take tanks. When they did write a bespoke list that let you play an armored company in 40K, it came with a laundry list of special rules intended to curb the obvious advantage such a heavy skew represented.

'It exists in the lore' does not automatically mean 'it should be an option for pick-up games and competitive play'. Restrictions are important for balance, and are the easiest thing to ignore when playing narrative games with like-minded friends.

This is a good point to keep in mind. That said, it does feel like there are a lot of units that didn't need to be restricted by the FOC that were (my Iybraesil/banshees example again). And if you tackle those units by making exceptions, then it opens up the, "Why can marines spam bikes but necrons can't," can of worms.

In the past, we had Matched VS Narrative play. That didn't work out great because it created this sort of false dichotomy of matched play being basically tournament-style games while narrative play was loosy goosy and sort of implied that GW wasn't really making an effort to balance it or make it useful for pickup games. I think a lot of us want something that is structured enough to have a pickup game, but flexible enough to let us play flavorful armies.

So in theory, you could have a stricter style of play intended for tournaments and whatnot that would require armies stick to more structured rules, pay a troop tax, prevents skew, etc. And then you could have a looser style of play similar to what we have now where someone might show up with a skew list, but it's fine because it's understood that you're not looking for a Super Serious tournament style game. The stricter format would be nice for tournaments and possibly as a way for strangers doing a PUG to ensure they're offering eachother a reasonable matchup. The latter is what I'd want to feel free to do if I were just messing around with people I'm comfortable with.

So something like an armored company would be the domain of the looser style of play while a tournament IG list would have to feature more of a mix of guardsmen, some elites, have a limited cap on the number of vehicles, etc.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

In the past, we had Matched VS Narrative play. That didn't work out great because it created this sort of false dichotomy of matched play being basically tournament-style games while narrative play was loosy goosy and sort of implied that GW wasn't really making an effort to balance it or make it useful for pickup games. I think a lot of us want something that is structured enough to have a pickup game, but flexible enough to let us play flavorful armies.

So in theory, you could have a stricter style of play intended for tournaments and whatnot that would require armies stick to more structured rules, pay a troop tax, prevents skew, etc. And then you could have a looser style of play similar to what we have now where someone might show up with a skew list, but it's fine because it's understood that you're not looking for a Super Serious tournament style game. The stricter format would be nice for tournaments and possibly as a way for strangers doing a PUG to ensure they're offering eachother a reasonable matchup. The latter is what I'd want to feel free to do if I were just messing around with people I'm comfortable with.

So something like an armored company would be the domain of the looser style of play while a tournament IG list would have to feature more of a mix of guardsmen, some elites, have a limited cap on the number of vehicles, etc.

That's going to lead to the same scenario the Matched vs Narrative did. Pickup games with random people will always favor tournament rules because, well you are having a game with a random person you likely aren't very familiar with, that's borderline the same environment as a tournament.

The level of trust and familiarity required with "highly flavourful" rules is something you have with friends, but not random pickup games.

 Tyran wrote:

So in theory, you could have a stricter style of play intended for tournaments and whatnot that would require armies stick to more structured rules, pay a troop tax, prevents skew, etc. And then you could have a looser style of play similar to what we have now where someone might show up with a skew list, but it's fine because it's understood that you're not looking for a Super Serious tournament style game.

or or or, hear me out: We could have the same level of restrictions baked into the rule for both scenario, with the option of you choosing to build a fluffy narrative list as you wish.

Tyran wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

In the past, we had Matched VS Narrative play. That didn't work out great because it created this sort of false dichotomy of matched play being basically tournament-style games while narrative play was loosy goosy and sort of implied that GW wasn't really making an effort to balance it or make it useful for pickup games. I think a lot of us want something that is structured enough to have a pickup game, but flexible enough to let us play flavorful armies.

So in theory, you could have a stricter style of play intended for tournaments and whatnot that would require armies stick to more structured rules, pay a troop tax, prevents skew, etc. And then you could have a looser style of play similar to what we have now where someone might show up with a skew list, but it's fine because it's understood that you're not looking for a Super Serious tournament style game. The stricter format would be nice for tournaments and possibly as a way for strangers doing a PUG to ensure they're offering eachother a reasonable matchup. The latter is what I'd want to feel free to do if I were just messing around with people I'm comfortable with.

So something like an armored company would be the domain of the looser style of play while a tournament IG list would have to feature more of a mix of guardsmen, some elites, have a limited cap on the number of vehicles, etc.

That's going to lead to the same scenario the Matched vs Narrative did. Pickup games with random people will always favor tournament rules because, well you are having a game with a random person you likely aren't very familiar with, that's borderline the same environment as a tournament.

The level of trust and familiarity required with "highly flavourful" rules is something you have with friends, but not random pickup games.

That hasn't necessarily been my experience. When Narrative play was a thing, the biggest factor keeping people from using it was probably just Power Level. Generally, my experience has been that people are fine with and even excited to see thematic armies during pickup games. But maybe I'm wrong. It just seems like having a form of play where it's understood that
A.) we can have cool, fluffy things.
B.) Having cool, fluffy things sometimes leads to weaker balance.
... could be good for the game. Instead of trying to make tournament rules also work for casual games.

VladimirHerzog wrote:
or or or, hear me out: We could have the same level of restrictions baked into the rule for both scenario, with the option of you choosing to build a fluffy narrative list as you wish.

Sure. I'm all for it. But as we've been discussing in this thread, things like armored companies or spamming certain units can be thematic but also present challenges to game balance. But if you can give us army-building rules that facilitate flavorful lists (that wouldn't have worked under the FOC) and also don't result in balance problems, I'm all for it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Sure. I'm all for it. But as we've been discussing in this thread, things like armored companies or spamming certain units can be thematic but also present challenges to game balance. But if you can give us army-building rules that facilitate flavorful lists (that wouldn't have worked under the FOC) and also don't result in balance problems, I'm all for it.

armored company was not prevented from existing by the FoC either.

I'm not sure where the "balance issues from listbuilding" are coming from, Rule of 3 rarely matters anyway, even in the top competitive lists.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

armored company was not prevented from existing by the FoC either.

I'm not sure where the "balance issues from listbuilding" are coming from, Rule of 3 rarely matters anyway, even in the top competitive lists.

Just to nitpick a lil', but the Armored Company/Battlegroup was a FW list.

That meant it might as well not exist.