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, to preface this, where I come from, formations and those decurion style formation FOCs are something we categorically do not use without permission. For pick- up games, you get a CAD and/ or Allies OR a Codex - Specific Detachment and/ or Allies. We also play lower point games and up that at really weird increments. So, the "normal" games we play are 1400 - 1500 point games, and occasionally we play 1650- 1750 point games. We have also implemented the 25% rule for LOWs from the HH books, with IKs counting LOWs no matter where they come from. So some might say we are all prudes, but there are about ten of us and one or two dudes who come home from college in the summer and there is no inkling of this stopping, as our games are 'balanced,' more or less. I have not seen anything in our group close to the cheese I've seen on the internet. But a couple of us have commented on the local games being.. dare I say, stale?

Any way, it was brought up in conversation the other day to implement some system where percentage restrictions apply to FOC slots no matter where a unit comes from as a way to allow some more open comp. So, as a test we want to do this essentially:

Take 7th edition force building out of the box, but amend this:

No matter where a unit comes from (CAD, Allies, formation etc.), it counts towards a percentage allowance towards the following restrictions:

HQ- 0- 35%

Elite- 0- 50%

Troop- 30- 100% (no upper limit on troop choices)

Fast- 0- 50%

Heavy 0- 50%

or something like that. We will have to nail down specific limits on our own, but I thought a modified version of the 8th edition fantasy chart was a good place to start. There will be a group message with all of us in it to discuss this in detail, but we are all rather insular. I thought some internet wisdom was in order. Thoughts?

Percentile restrictions have their merits, but I simply don't like them. Currently, many books have very lacklustre troops that people often consider to be a "tax." Forcing people to spend more points on units they don't enjoy playing with is meh. Of course, that would be fixed if troops were consistently more enjoyable to play with, but that's another discussion entirely. Core requirements are one of the main reasons I never got into Fantasy.

Another concern is that some armies not only have poor troops, but also rely on synergy from non-troop units to make their army work. Tyranids, for instance, don't really get much use out of their troops these days. My buddy's competitive lists only feature cheap squads of burrowing rippers as troops so he can basically grab objectives with them and otherwise forget they exist. The rest of the army is either synapse, something to provide a cover save, or something that can actually do damage. None of those units are troops.

Chaos daemons also potentially get hit hard by a 30% requirement in the sense that monogod armies (not as effective, but very fluffy!) only have a single troop cohice unless you're Nurgle. So my new Slaaneshi army, for instance, would require I spent about 600 points on daemonettes to play an 1850 game without allies. That's about 5 or 6 boxes of daemonettes, so about $150 to $180 of the exact same box of models over and over again just to play a "standard" game. >.<

Also add to the fact that some armies simply have no Troops whatsoever, meaning they MUST ally to fulfill the requirements.

I agree that the current F.O.C has got out of control and quite complicated.
It also fails to perform the function it is supposed to.

I much prefer the simpler and easier methods of classing units by how rare they are...

How about using the method that Epic SM used to build armies?

You select a Core of HQ and 4 Common units.(These 4 unit may be from any current slot , but are themed by the HQ choice.)

The Core allows you to take up to 2 Specialist units.
If you take those 2 Specialist units you may take a Restricted unit.

EG a Ork Goff Klan (Foot sloggers.)

A HQ of Warboss and retenue.
A Core of 4 units chosen from the following
1 to 4 Boys mobs ,(ANY may be upgraded to Ard boys.)
0-2 Grot mobs .(One unit may be upgraded to wild boys..)
0-1 Storm Boys mobs.

Special units .
0-2 Nobz Mob (One Nobz mob for every 2 Mobs mobs taken in the core)
0-2 Big guns mobs.(May be upgraded to Killa Kanz if HQ includes a Painboy.)
0-2 Warbikes /Warbuggies.(May only be taken if storm boys included in the Core.)

Restricted units.
DeffDreads
Battle wagons
Deffkopterz.

The idea is the Core has a mix of units that follow the theme of the force.(They can be from current troops, elites , fast attack or heavy support slots.)
The Specialized and Restricted units add support to the theme.
Another Core block and associated Specialized and Restricted unit can be added to the original HQ.

OR a fresh HQ and new Core can be added as an allied force.(But may not take any Specialized or Restricted units.)

I probably need to explain that better...

What is the goal of this? If your groups games have remained mostly balance and now its just getting stale then I would suggest actually trying out more of the new formations, detachments dataslates what-have-yous. Most of these are not inherently broken until someone looks to abuse them.

My group is similar in that we *usually* try to avoid bringing the i-win buttons although sometimes we do like to go for broke because its fun, in small doses.

Anyway the other option is to expand your scenarios and change up the pts limits you set. Even try swapping armies occasionally. These are all things we do to keep it real. Team play tourneys and more.

Anyway I suggest all of these because from my experience percentage based FOC doesn't help and in fact it usually hurts. Looking back to when I did play fantasy the introduction of this system was one of my most hated features of the game.

Just some friendly input.

A point to co sided with these percentages would be certain armies would not necessarily contain any troops choices, and having 30% of the points spent on them would possibly detract from the theme. For example, Logan leading a force of Wolf Guard, using the Champions of Fenris book would be fairly fluffy, and well themed, provided you equipped the units as if they were Wolf Guard. Doing the same, but, quite possibly, forcing the army to include more Grey Hunters than Wolf Guard, would detract from the feel and look of the force as a whole

IMO the piont values assigned to units should reflect their in game worth as accurately as possible.
The army composition method should cover all the synergistic anomalies found when play testing.

The army composition should allow as wider range of themes as necessary to provide a entertaining experience for players.
Just to have a couple of 'good builds ' per faction is a horrid waste of potential.IMO.

So classing units by rarity rather than function is a KEY step to opening up the thematic lists while keeping the army composition straight forward.

Many players do not like percentages, as they are seen as 'fiddley'.

I think a revised 'slot' method will be simpler and just as effective, as a percentage system..

Lanrak wrote:
IMO the piont values assigned to units should reflect their in game worth as accurately as possible.
The army composition method should cover all the synergistic anomalies found when play testing.

The army composition should allow as wider range of themes as necessary to provide a entertaining experience for players.
Just to have a couple of 'good builds ' per faction is a horrid waste of potential.IMO.

So classing units by rarity rather than function is a KEY step to opening up the thematic lists while keeping the army composition straight forward.

Many players do not like percentages, as they are seen as 'fiddley'.

I think a revised 'slot' method will be simpler and just as effective, as a percentage system..

Well, the thing is, some things would be rare for one army, while quite common in another.

For example, Terminators are quite common in Dark Angel associated Chapters, while less common among White Scars and Raven Guard successors.

And then you're right back to "which units are Troops" mantra again.

The old FOC basically did this, but that was before units that clearly belonged in other slots (ie bikes) got buffed and moved to Troops. Now they will make a mockery of any attempt to "balance" a list using standard FOC slots.

@christophe.
I need to explain this better.

All the units for a faction are listed with load out and point values.

Then all the THEMES for the faction , between 6 and 12 are listed .

Each Theme will tell you which HQ options you may take.And how units are classed for that particular theme.

The FoC of
1 HQ
4 to 8 Common units.
1 Specialized unit may be selected for each two Common units taken.
1 Restrictred unit may be taken for each two Specialized units taken.

Stays the same for every theme.

But the units classification changes for each theme.

EG a Warbike mob would be Common in a Kult of Speed themed army, Specialized in a Death Skulls army, and restricted in a Goff army, and not listed in a Snake Bite list.Snake bite use boar boys instead..)

Is that a bit clearer?

I think just different points values, and fun formations and scenarios make the game better, not more mandatory house rules.

I play dark eldar, and just max out fast attack, spending like 200 points on troops, not really anything more because dark eldar troops kinda suck.

anyways, this is not the way to go when it comes to making 40K more fun.

happy wargaming,

-Mikey

Lanrak wrote:
@christophe.
I need to explain this better.

All the units for a faction are listed with load out and point values.

Then all the THEMES for the faction , between 6 and 12 are listed .

Each Theme will tell you which HQ options you may take.And how units are classed for that particular theme.

The FoC of
1 HQ
4 to 8 Common units.
1 Specialized unit may be selected for each two Common units taken.
1 Restrictred unit may be taken for each two Specialized units taken.

Stays the same for every theme.

But the units classification changes for each theme.

EG a Warbike mob would be Common in a Kult of Speed themed army, Specialized in a Death Skulls army, and restricted in a Goff army, and not listed in a Snake Bite list.Snake bite use boar boys instead..)

Is that a bit clearer?

You explained it fine, but it still goes back "Which units are Troops" again. The only difference is what used to be called "Troops" is now "Common". So, it just ends up being back to the same thing all over again.

In one way, this is what the new "umbrella" detachments like the Decurion, Warhost, and Strike Forces are doing. The Core Formation is filled with the basic common group, and then add the less common and more specialized unit groups in to your army.

@Charistoph.
So being able to choose the units you want to have the most of in your themed army , EG Terminators in a 1st company themed list.
Without having to buy 2 lots of tactical marines first.

Has not fixed the problem of the classic 40k F.O.C ,in having to take 2 fixed units you may not like, to allow players to take the units they really want?

Here is a sample Kult of Speed list as an example.

HQ
Big Mek or Warboss on warbike.(And retinue.)

Select 4 to 8 Common units from the following.
1 to 4 Warbikes
1 to 4 Warbuggies
1 to 4 Deffkoptaz

For every 2 Common units you may select 1 of the following Specialist unit.
0-2 Trukk Mob(May be upgraded to K.O.S. Scrappaz.)
0-2 Gun trukk.
0-2 K.o.S. Mekboy Speedstaz(Bubble Chukkas, Lifta droppaz or Kustom Kannon.)
0-2 Battlewagons

For every 2 Specialist units taken you may select a Restricted unit.
0-2 Fighta Bommaz
0-2 K.O.S. Hawk Skwadron .(Deep striking Stormboys,)

K.O.S units can only be usd in a K.O.S list.

The other benefit of this is more themed units can be use , by simply only alowing them in a particular themed list. Squiggoths and Boar boys in a Snake bite list for example.

There is no troops elite, FA ,HS amy more.Just cool themes for armies where you pick the play style you like , and select units for that play style.

I think the GW game devs realized that classing units by function rather than rarity was a mis step.
But they are not allowed to change the core rules from 3rd ed.(Backward compatibility has really hampered game development IMO.)
So they have just piled more rules on top of the old F.O.C. to try to achive the same effect.

When people break put a Venn diagram to explain a 'simple ' force organisation method, something has gone horribly wrong some where!

If GW want players to be more narrative focused, then they should make sure the front end of the game support this.IMO.

Eg the force organizarition should show players the themes and play styles of the different factions and sub factions.So players pick a faction/race and a play style they like , and grow an army that is their own personal favorite collection of units to support their preferred play style.

The current set up with poor PV allocation and restrictive F.O.C. tends to focus players on finding the most cost effective option to spam in non troop slots, and minimize the amount of troops they have to waste points on in the ' crap unit tax'.

I know that this sort of F.O.C would need lots of play testing , and the more heavily themed lists would reduce the range of units taken.(EG fast recon force would not have slow heavy armour in it.)

I would expect all factions to have a general ' foot slogging or mechanized infantry' force that would follow the current 'bit of everything' type force.
But the more diverse outlying themes, would have more focus on units that fit that theme.