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'm starting to get into fantasy, and I'm learning about army composition and how it's got restrictions on what you can use. Anyways, I was just curious why they never thought to use a similar system in 40k. If anything I feel like it would cut down on spamming certain units and promote more balanced forces.

Because that's what the FOC is for.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because that's what the FOC is for.

Do you think it works better than the fantasy version?

Also just starting Fantasy and I believe the only reason that the limits were enacted was because of the large use of god shrines by lizard players which causes auto str 4 hits on all units within a certain range and they were incredibly hard to kill and having 2 of them tabled most armies alone in 2-3 turns. Otherwise I don't think it would work for 40k as they are different games but I'm a high elf player I ignore that stuff

Would just like to say if you went with percentage rates for army creation. A large large amount of army lists would become invalid. I cant think of many lists for races such as the SM who have more points in troops than anything else for instance.

40k actually used percentage points back in 2nd edition, and WHFB has used a FOC style system in the past.

Both systems have their merits, but how I see it is that the FOC is used in 40k as it's on the whole a simpler rules set compared to WHFB - for example the BS or AP systems are simpler than the WHFB equivalent (straight numbers instead of modifiers).

Quanar wrote:
for example the BS or AP systems are simpler than the WHFB equivalent (straight numbers instead of modifiers).

Agreed. Man switching from 40k to fantasy is going to be all sorts of wonk, what with high S attacks putting negative mods to armor saves and such

 Necroshea wrote:

Quanar wrote:
for example the BS or AP systems are simpler than the WHFB equivalent (straight numbers instead of modifiers).

Agreed. Man switching from 40k to fantasy is going to be all sorts of wonk, what with high S attacks putting negative mods to armor saves and such

Having done that before, all I can say it was a pain to switch back and not the other way around. 40K rule set isn't all that much easier than taking saves on "(armour value + strength - 3) or higher" (I played Fantasy in 6th edition, might've changed). And the cover system made a lot more sense.

Only stuff that I think makes Fantasy take longer is that it's hard to move line and file. Measure sticks just aren't made to measure portions of the circumsphere of circles.

2nd edition of 40k had similar save and cover system as Fantasy does. Save modifiers did have some exceptions though so you always had to check the weapon in question.
There were also BS minuses if the target moved too fast, BS plusses if you had Targeters and stuff like that.

This basically meant that in game, power armour didn't actually amount to much and flak armour amounted to nothing. Most weapons in the game were at least -1 and pretty much all heavy weapons were at least -2 (HB equivalent). Sustained Fire Dice mechanic also meant that fast firing weapons created more hits.

So statistically speaking this meant that against anti-infantry weapons, it was better to be naked heavy cover than wear power armour in open.

Luide wrote:
This basically meant that in game, power armour didn't actually amount to much and flak armour amounted to nothing.

IOW, just like it is now: power armor doesn't do very much, and flak armor might as well not exist.

2nd edition had similar points limits to fantasy, and the rules were very largely similar. What it meant in practice was that, with wargear and massively inflated stats for characters, it was more akin to 'herohammer' than you would like, individual characters could singlehandedly win battles, and a lot of armies were simply 'character delivery systems' Units of troops died like flies, even space marines, and battles usually hinged on the heroic actions of your characters, rather than tactical ploys.

Ultimately, i think 40k and warhammer have done a very nice job of steering away from that kind of thing. It was amusing on occassion to have a character sporting terminator armour (3+ save on 2d6) a refractor field(5+), power field(2+) and displacement field(3+) and be literally unkillable since you could take ALL your saves, not just the best one. they use different systems to achieve it, points restrictions in WHFB and the FOC in 40k, but they ultimately steer the army away from insanely overpowered units and characters and towards a more tactical game.

I suppose it would be possible to use a points restriction system, and it would change the structure of the armies somewhat, but as it stands, the 40k system is imo quite well balanced