Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/30 22:50:00
Subject: Proposed RUles - Modified FOC for variant detachments.
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
The core FOC is now the Combined Arms Detachment, a nice, balanced force that's applicable to a wide variety of situations. It lacks soem variety than some are after, and breaking away modified forces (Take Terminators as troops for first company! Take tanks as troops for an armored company! Etc etc.) ... So, without dancing with Unbound, here's a first pass at three new detachments, all of which are fairly obvious. First draft of course, so there's still some room to modify stuff.
EliteDetachment
HQ 2 (1 Required)
Elite 6 (2 required)
Troops 3
Fast Attack 1
Heavy Support 1
Special Rules: Elite and Troops are scoring units.
Lightning Strike Detachment
HQ 2 (1 Required)
Elite 1
Troops 3
Fast Attack 6 (2 required)
Heavy Support 1
Special Rules: Fast Attack and Troops are scoring units.
Heavy Detachment
B]HQ[/B] 2 (1 Required)
Elite 1
Troops 3
Fast Attack 1
Heavy Support 6 (2 required)
Special Rules: Heavy Support and Troops are scoring units.
***
The basic three, here, are designed effectively the same: Double one type, half the other types (rounding down), and giving troops and the "feature" of the detachment regular scoring. The rest of the force is non-scoring, and the special detachments are still outdone by the combined arms detachment's troops having SUPER scoring powaer, so everything has a good reason to exist.
While there are some obvious weaknesses (5 RIptides? Yeah, I'm good.) I think that the variety that you can get is a nice tradeoff, at least in theory. You'd have to use the "Don't be a jerk" meta-rules to keep some people in check, mind you. Still, in one sweeping gesture, you suddenly open up a ton of playstyles. Jetack forces, like the Storm Ravens, or heavy biker units, like White Scars, can be taken without a special guy. Everyone can have a Terminator-based "First Company". If you want to run a craftworl famous for Howling Banshees, now you can. Despite a few obvious flaws, I think it'd work, but it could EASILY be abused, so you'd need to ride herd on it more than maybe you'd like.
Thoughts? COmments? UTTERLY mad? Let me know.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/30 22:51:04
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/01 06:21:19
Subject: Proposed RUles - Modified FOC for variant detachments.
|
 |
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine
|
7th has really opened up the idea of drastically different force organisation. I like these.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/01 08:28:49
Subject: Re:Proposed RUles - Modified FOC for variant detachments.
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
Why use in game function to classify units?
Why not use unit availability ?
That way you can use the same F.O.C for all armies, just change the availability from list to list.
EG
All forces must have a Command Unit.
For every Command Unit you must ftake 2 to 8 Common Units.
For every Command Unit you may take one Specialized Unit.
For every 2 Common Units you may take up to 1 Support Unit.
For every 2 Support Units you may take up to 1 Restricted Unit.
(When a Command Unit has taken all 8 Common Units, another Command Unit may be taken.)
The Command Unit you chose determines what the other units you pick are classed as.
I may have to explain that better?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/01 10:37:41
Subject: Proposed RUles - Modified FOC for variant detachments.
|
 |
Sneaky Kommando
|
when i first heard about the combined arms detachment i wondered if they would do something like this to let us build very specific forces with unique rules, though i guess some formations already are
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/01 11:50:58
Subject: Re:Proposed RUles - Modified FOC for variant detachments.
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Lanrak wrote:Why use in game function to classify units?
Why not use unit availability ?
That way you can use the same F.O.C for all armies, just change the availability from list to list.
I may have to explain that better?
I considered that, and a core notch of "For every two common units, you may take one each of the others" type of set up (IE, 2 troops, you can get 1 each of the others. $ troops, up to 2 each, etc), but rather than fully re-invent the wheel, I went for more of a softboot here, since you have to be wary of a big change. Letting people say "I'll take 4 Riptides as my troops!" winds up in unhappy people, after all. So, the combined arms balanced force needs to have an advantage, and super-scoring, plus all other units normal scoring, helps balance things, but not entirely. As noted in Unbound talk, "Scoring doesn't matter if I shoot you off the board."
So, getting the right balance to this is tricky.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/03 12:44:54
Subject: Re:Proposed RUles - Modified FOC for variant detachments.
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
Hi Wakashaani.
IF you list the unit options for each themed force for the army you can balance the proposed 'availability' type F.O.C.
The theme dictates the availability and frequency of units.
For example in my proposed IG Armoured Company .
The Tank squads (3 LMR MBTS) are troops , and so are Armoured Infantry squads.(10 man IG troop +Chimera.)
You HAVE to field an armoured infantry Squad for every tank squad.
(The 'Brothers in Arms' doctrine.Tanks and infantry work together.)
Some units only ever get to be support or restricted choices.Others can directly limit the availability of other units, as in the example above.
I agree it probably requires more time and effort to get well defined and balanced thematic forces.
But just loading up on 6 Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support, choices with minimal support from other units types is just a open to abuse IMO.
At least themed lists you can justify and implement the restrictions required for ballance , with your proposed system how do you stop TFG?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/05 03:38:31
Subject: Proposed RUles - Modified FOC for variant detachments.
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
That's the downside, yes. It trusts the players to be adults instead of handwalking through everything.
You might have to start making things more precise and slotting specific things into codexi, like "Space Marine First Company FOC" or "Imperial Guard Armored Company FOC" or the like.
I'd just hoped that a softer, lighter version could work. Hope springs eternal and all that.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/05 08:58:23
Subject: Re:Proposed RUles - Modified FOC for variant detachments.
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Lanrak wrote:For example in my proposed IG Armoured Company .
The Tank squads (3 LMR MBTS) are troops , and so are Armoured Infantry squads.(10 man IG troop +Chimera.)
You HAVE to field an armoured infantry Squad for every tank squad.
(The 'Brothers in Arms' doctrine.Tanks and infantry work together.)
Why not just use the standard IG armored battlegroup rules instead of trying to invent your own rules? The same thing is true of other variant lists, they're probably best done as supplements with their own separate units and army list instead of trying to make a special FOC or add restrictions to the original codex list.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/05 08:59:30
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/06 11:00:34
Subject: Re:Proposed RUles - Modified FOC for variant detachments.
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
Hi Peregrine.
I would rather use a standard F.O.C. as discussed, with LIMITED restrictions on a FEW specialized lists where the standard F.O.C outlined is not sufficient.
I am not using the original codex force definitions based on function, simply presenting the army themes , and how those units are classed in those themed armies.
Eg The SM codex lists all the units available to the SM player..
The HQ units then determine the theme and what units are classed as in that particular force.
EG a SM Commander and retinue equipped with jump packs, allows assault marines to be Common units .
This can follow the 'Death from Above' type themed force.(The drop assault type force.)Or the 'Lighning strike' assault type.(A force using more fast land based support.)
I am not very good at explaining this concept.
But using unit availability in themed forces is far more flexible and intuitive than using unit function as a denominator in F.O.C. in my experience.
|
|
 |
 |
|