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.

So this morning while sipping coffee I thought about work, then I thought about 40k. I was reading an article about all the new ork formations.

Like many people I have played 40k since RT era, I used to enjoy GMing battles [yes battles would have a GM often] I would draw out a map of how the battlefield would look and mark some areas with things like carnivorous plants, acid pools, a small village that had a ptera squirrel cult that worshiped ptera squirrels that were secretly possessed by enslavers. Then the players would make their armies, there were no army lists so there would be things like two squats on hoverboards and an ambull as one players army. The players would setup their armies and fight and if they got too close to certain things I would inform them that it was an acid pool, make x test, or you come across a strange woman with a lot of ptera squirrels, make a cool test.

The main point of all that however that was on my mind was the army creation. I started thinking about how army selection has changed through 40k editions. It has mostly always been point based, there used to be some warband tables and what not, but then it went from buying whatever to buying things from lists. You would have various limits built into the list of a max of 0-1 of something or 1+ of something. Then editions changed and we saw a % system, where you had to spend x% in one area, and could spend up to x% in other areas. Most recently we have had a standard FoC as the main system, some special battle types had different FoC options bust most people kept to the standard battles and the standard FoC.

The standard FoC was made fairly redundant with allies, almost going back to the x% system where people would buy the minimum troops and then buy just a bunch of HQ/Elite/FA/Heavy. Making troops fairly redundant, and in some ways the idea of a FoC as well. However we still had the standard FoC and followed it, often to the minimal required in some areas to get the maximum required in other areas.

It dawned on me this morning, that 7th is more like RT than any other edition. If you take unbound you can pretty much emulate a RT game minus a lot of chart rolling (there were things like d1000 charts where you rolled 3 ten siders) However then I started thinking about battleforged armies more.

You pick your Warlord, your warlords detachment is your primary detachment.

Battle forged armies are made up of detachments

Formations are a special type of detachment

If you do not have any character models in your army, then select any other model in your army to be the Warlord. The model you choose as your Warlord also determines your Primary Detachment.


Then it sunk in, there is no standard FoC anymore. The Combined arms detachment is just a detachment, it is not required. You don't even need a character model to be in your army to be the Warlord.

You can have a battleforged army that is made up solely of detachments or formations, there is no requirement that it is the Combined arms detachment. If you want to have a 40k legal ork mek/dread/kan/naut army you can from taking the formations(a special type of detachment) as the sole part of your army. If you want to be space marines and play only fliers, you can buy taking only the air superiority detachments, you could make one of the thunderhawks your warlord. If you want to play a nid skyblight swarm army using only that formation repeated two or three times you could.

As we see more 7th codexes come out we will see more LoW choices (I expect to see powerful HQs become LoW much like Ghazkul did, ie eldrad, vect, calgar, etc.) and we will see more formations/detachments in the parent/supplement codexes which will allows for builds that deviate from the combined arms detachment which is the example detachment everyone has access to, and will deviate and move away from the old 5th/6th mentality of what a standard force organization looks like.

It seems as if GW is moving more towards a RT era model of anything goes/ you can do just about anything but have to buy 3 of these and 1 of these and can only have 1 of these, unless you buy another slot of all of that.

I disagree with the "end of FOC" simply because the set detachment FOCs offer some pretty good bonuses. Unbound is fun, and I'll use it from time to time, but I'll use an established FOC such as Combined Arms just as much.

If anything, I see the FOCs for codex-specific detachments becoming a new selling point for armies.

And this is why I'm loving Fantasy more and more. % based lists, and no allying. The FoC, or Detachments, or whatever it is now, has become so diluted, and 7th edition still did not fix spamming of any kind. I miss the idea of having an army, and playing THAT army. I know a lot of people like this stuff, but me and my friends will continue to abide by the standard FoC, even though we don't have to.

i agree with you, the set bonuses are very good and when playing with the cards objective secured (which comes with the Combined arms detachment) is incredibly potent.

I'm not advocating that FoC is gone, maybe I should clarify but the requirement to follow a standard FoC is gone.

Instead we have a system where we pick formations/detachments and those have requirements, some of which may be a force organization chart, and the units are purchased through them, and we can pick the detachments/formations and therefore pick how the FoC for an army will be, which is closer to RT army lists.

Honestly I think they should allow for more themes, without just throwing in everything and the kitchen sink. For instance, the FOC itself was a neat idea but required a ton of exceptions to allow for things like an all bike army, or all terminators, or all crisis suits.

I'd rather see a return to some of the flexibility of 2nd edition, where you had "Squads" that was basically every kind of infantry, and if you wanted to do let's say all Terminators you could, just you'd have a much smaller army. Unbound is sort of like that but goes too far by allowing outright nonsense e.g. 6 Riptides + 3 Wraithknights + 3 Imperial Knights as though it was fine and dandy.

yeah some of the formations are very spammy, technically you could make a legal battleforged army from just the tau firebase cadre formation spammed over and over and select one of the riptides as the warlord.

of course you wouldn't have any objective secured troops, and will struggle taking any objectives other than killing things.

I'm looking forward to playing more games of 7th but I think the real "balancing force" in army balance will end up being card based games. As you will have to tailor some of your list at least towards scoring objectives.

It would be interesting to go through the cards and see how many are based on what and build an army based on securing points from the cards and see how that does competitively.

The interesting thing about this, I think, is that in time, I can see it rewarding players for building somewhat fluff-based armies more than the previous rules. You have the 'levels' of organisation that go as such:

Unbound: Whatever you want, but no bonuses

Combined Arms: Generic, somewhat constrained for some factions, but offers Objective Secured and Mission Commander rules

Formations/Special Detachments: Based on specific armies or incidents, and offer bonuses that really do reflect the race, for example the Ork's ability to continually Waaaagh with one of the detachments or take a 100-boy mob in another. Other examples include the various Tyranid formations that offer fluffy bonuses for specific armies.

So, given time, we may well see the development of a game in which freedom is unparalleled, but also where building themed lists is rewarded and allows you to really play in the style of the army. The best of both worlds, really!

I would have much preferred a FoC style like the HH books where you could pick a different FoC with a certain theme that cam with some restrictions and bonuses.

Allowed for variety and themed lists without going off the deep end of lazy rules writing.

 Blacksails wrote:
I would have much preferred a FoC style like the HH books where you could pick a different FoC with a certain theme that cam with some restrictions and bonuses.

Allowed for variety and themed lists without going off the deep end of lazy rules writing.

In all honesty, I can see this happening after we get a few more codex releases. The only difference will be that you can mix and match various detachment types in an army rather than being restrictes to just one.

All in all, I think it will be a change for the better, especially if we get FOC for different types of SM company or Guard company or Eldar craftworld.

 Blacksails wrote:
I would have much preferred a FoC style like the HH books where you could pick a different FoC with a certain theme that cam with some restrictions and bonuses.

How is that different from what we are getting now?

I would advice you to read the Ork-codex and supplement.
It has a total of two special detachments and 8 formations with special rules, a theme and they can be used to field an entire army.
A next supplement might bring this number to three or four detachments with at least 13 formations.

That is really a lot more than the single FOC we had in 6th.
My only issue with it is that it's spread out too much and it's a pain in the ass to get this stuff into Battlescribe.
When my Blood Angels are released, I will probably just copy paste them into a single PDF for my own use.

I think it is more like 2nd than RT but that squibbling. Yea its definitely regressing back t o random charts, dedicated psychic phase and less restrictions on army org.

The difference is that, ideally, you'd only get that one detachment, and maybe an allied one. You couldn't just take multiple detachments with no restrictions, in my ideal FoC world.

There also wouldn't be Unbound because its a poor idea.

I'm also not overly fond of formations in the current game. If the game was based entirely around formations, I'd be happy, but as it stands I'm not a fan.

To me Unbound has one advantage; you know your opponent's army is legal. With all the CAD/FOC shenanigans you can do now, it is easier to make mistakes or cheat. So in that regard 7th is a return to an earlier style of 40k, one before pick up games. I don't know if I will ever bother to play a pick up game with someone new at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of course that assumes I continue to play 40k at all past my commitments to a summer campaign.