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 working on my own in- house version of 40k and it occurs to me that I can do whatever I want with this game now. Not that I didn't know that before, but I'm an idea guy and I have so many ideas.

My initial thought was to go back to the original FOC and modify it. What I came up with was basically all of the same upper limits, but with no compulsory HQs. Something I want to try to do is balance the game across a wider range of point limits and I think having the only minimums be 2 troops helps armies with expensive HQs that feel more taxing at lower points.

But I liked the pre- necron 7th ed paradigm where each army got its own FOC. Perhaps each army could get 2-3 different FOCs to choose from that theme the army differently? And then there would be no need for a base FOC in the core rules, and I could put force- tailored FOCs in my own codexes.

I also like Rites of War from HH. I could start with a base FOC and have different armies modify the FOC while heavily restricting Composition.

Now, i never played 4th edition. I barely played any 5th edition. But i do like older designs where some units had hard caps specific to themselves. Does anyone who played the game when these were around have anything to say?

Then my other ideas came from other threads here on Dakka:

I could implement a new FOC slot called "specialists" for those units that get tossed around between HQ/ Elite/ Slotless/ Troop/ 0-1 limited units. This is where tech marines, medics, heroes who aren't quite HQs, named characters like Lukas the trickster and Sgt. Telion would go.

But then this other notion gets tossed around a lot, too: The current FOC is based on function. What if we based the FOC on rarity instead?

Something like:



The ultimate bent here is on theme and flavor. Crunch balance is done with stats and point costing. The FOC is for making your force feel like your force. What I want to know is, with that in mind, what is the best course of action?

I'm a fan of restrictive-but-thematic detachments. The trick is making sure that things that are thematic are still balanced. Scatterbike spam kind of makes sense for a Saim-Hann army, for instance, but it doesn't necessarily make for an interesting game. Especially when that list gets put next to something fairly unimpressive like, say, a squishy wych cult detachment.

I humbly offer a couple of my recent threads for you to take a look at:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/656627.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/655624.page

My detachments stick closer to current conventions than what you're proposing, but that's mostly for the sake of compatibility.

I like the idea of a "specialist" slot. Sanguinary priests, tech marines, etc. would make a lot of sense in such a slot.

Making HQs non-mandatory is interesting, and I approve of it. I love my farseers and autarchs, but the general doesn't have to be around for every battle. What would you think of allowing for more HQ slots though? At least for certain detachments. Maybe 3 or 4 HQ slots? For most books (other than maybe daemons and tyranids), HQ options are usually powerful but less impressive than similar points invested into a regular FA, HS, or Elite squad unless you buff up the HQ in question with an especially potent (arguably broken) loadout. I'd love to run 4 phoenix lords in a single list without doing multi-CAD shenanigans, for instance, and I don't feel it would be broken considering they'd run me about 800 points.

Note that heavy support isn't necessarily amazingly better than other options. It usually is, sure, but Riptides are Elites iirc, Flyrants are HQs, and wriathguard and scatter bikes are Elites and Troops respectively.

most of the things in your alternate lists can be re- phrased in the format of a RoW- type set of restrictions and permissions, though and that is what I'm leaning towards. And any slot with fewer slots that the basic CAD can be re written as list prerequisites like "must have more FA+ troop selections than heavy" or something. thanks for the pointer!

I could get behind having base 3-4 HQs.

About the FA vs HS question, I suppose my view is too narrow. If I'm playing SM, I will always take devs before I take Asm. and if I'm playing CSM and helldrakes and oblits take up the same slot, it would just be confusing. But I don't play eldar, tau or nids, so I've never written lists for them. Thanks for the input!

Hi,
How would you feel about borrowing the force construction method from Epic SM.

Buying a 'company card' a 'core force' of HQ unit and 4 core units.The 'core units' are themed to the HQ selected.
And this allows 0-2 Support units that support the Core units.And 0-1 Restricted unit that is 'counter theme' support.

EG the 'Emperors Anvil' theme SM force.(Defence line.)1

HQ SM Captain with 5 man retinue in a Razorback .
With 4 Core units chosen from .(HS options)
1-3 Devastator units.
0-2 Whirlwind.
0-1 Predators.

0-2 Support units,Chosen from .(On theme Troops /elites.).
0-1 Dreadnought.
0-1 Terminator Squad in Land Raider.
0-2 Combat squads with Razorback or Tactical Squads

0-1 Restricted unit chosen from .(Counter theme FA units.)
0-1 Deep striking Assault terminator squad, or deep striking SM Assault squad,
0-1 Recon unit , SM bikes or Land Speeder unit .
0-1 Scout unit, SM scouts, or SM Scout Bikes.

Players can chose 4 more core units as set by the first HQ, allowing 2 more Support and 1 more restricted Choice,OR pick a new HQ with 4 different core units.

IMO, having 6 to 12 themed lists for each force would allow much more focus on narrative list construction.

Sorry about the poor example, but I hope you get the basic idea..

That does look like it would work, but I'm not sure if I like imposing restrictions like that. It works for a lower scale game like epic SM (6mm IIRC but please correct me if I'm wrong), but for a 28mm like 40k it comes off as, "These are the only themes you can have, ever." And that takes a lot of creativity and tactical synergy out of the list building phase. You could probably modify that some way to make it more palatable but taken as is, idk if that method works as well here as it does for its own game.

 Powerfisting wrote:

Now, i never played 4th edition. I barely played any 5th edition. But i do like older designs where some units had hard caps specific to themselves. Does anyone who played the game when these were around have anything to say?

It was often crappy. I have lots of things to say about it but I think it wouldn't matter.

The other thing that I am going to say is that in force organization used to determine deployment order. Each player deployed wavy support first, because it should be easier to see and react to heavy units, and the last part of deployment was each player deploying fast attack, because they could

@Powerfisting.
The current problem I see with the old F.O.C , is players feel they have to pay a 'troops tax' to get at the unit they want to use.

Where as a set of 6 to 12 basic themes lets players chose the 'core' from the units they really want.
My above example was not that good.

But what SM theme is not covered by ..

Foot infantry,(Massed and Elite options)
Mechanized infantry, (Massed and elite options.)
Scouting force,
Deeps strike assault
Deep strike heavy assault
Heavy Armoured assault
Defensive line.
Armoured defense,

If there is one we can make a theme to cover it!
The themed core has just the BASIC unit options that you find in that type force.
So players pick the core that has their favorite type of unit/ play style.And add supporting units to personalize it..

I probably have not explained it that well...

Lanrak wrote:
I probably have not explained it that well...

Ok so first off, stop saying this. On almost all of your posts, you apologize for not explaining anything well enough. You explained everything fine.


Second off, part of the reason I don't like the epic SM/ epic 40k stuff is close to why formations irked me in the beginning. The theme is there and it feels strong, but the theme is imposed so well that it comes off (to me at least) as being really forced. I'm a fan of designing "organically," if that is a thing. What I mean by that is specific restrictions and exceptions to a main rule detract from the rule itself.

The way I try to design something is to write a single mechanic and design things related to that such that any exceptions or hard restrictions you may think you need are imposed by the player's decision- making skills. On the topic of the "troop Tax," I feel that. I will post my home brew rules here when I feel like it is mostly complete, but an effort was made to make troop units *not* a tax. It may not have been enough of an effort-- that will require play testing. But themes should open up possibilities and, while not actively restricting anything, dissuade players from doing certain things for actual strategic reasons. Something along the lines of, "you could do that, but you might not want to," is kind of a tag line when my brother and I talk about x wing squadrons.

All that said, there are things I like about the epic SM stuff. A core/ support/ auxiliary distinction to force building would put a neat spin on things. I could totally see the reasoning behind having less FA options when the main bulk of your force is devastators.

Aha, thanks for the clarification.

The Basic F.O.C. actually looks like this,

HQ
4 to 8 core units*.
1 Support unit for each 2 core units.
1 Restricted units for each 2 Support units.

I only suggested the 'Core of HQ and 4 Core units'.To allow players to build forces quicker.
(The way the card system worked in Epic SM battle game really well for force building.)

And having slight restrictions I proposed with the 'themed Cores' on the above proposed themed force composition, aids balance.

I see a battle game about focusing on the 'unit synergy' in both strategic and tactical levels.
Rather than focusing on 'tricking out minatures' in units.

Lanrak wrote:
The current problem I see with the old F.O.C , is players feel they have to pay a 'troops tax' to get at the unit they want to use.

And the old FOC worked precisely because of that "tax". It limited the amount of hurt you could throw at another player by filling a good chunk of your list with filler. Now that filler has mostly been thrown away, leaving players to pick and choose the units with the best firepower per point. Combined with the general increase in firepower over the past couple years, armies are becoming highly optimized leafblower lists.

@Greyknight12.
The increase in fire power is an issue with the core rules not the F.O.C.

Classing units by function has a horrible effect on the way some gamers look at how they construct a force.
Find the most cost effective option in a slot and spam them and take the minimum requirements to do so.

The idea of a themed list is the focus in on the theme, and gets players thinking about how that themed force is used to deal with a variety of other themed forces.

This is much healthier attitude to promote a wide and diverse range of personalized armies and game play styles.

 greyknight12 wrote:
And the old FOC worked precisely because of that "tax". It limited the amount of hurt you could throw at another player by filling a good chunk of your list with filler. Now that filler has mostly been thrown away, leaving players to pick and choose the units with the best firepower per point. Combined with the general increase in firepower over the past couple years, armies are becoming highly optimized leafblower lists.

That is true, but for my game in particular, an effort was made to allow normal dudes to do things that other dudes can't. I'm really not fond of anything being treated like a tax; even normal soldiers should be worth something. I take it you are a fan of the classic FOC?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
This is much healthier attitude to promote a wide and diverse range of personalized armies and game play styles.

Depending on player attitude is lazy design, though. designing something for theme while leaving something open for abuse and saying "oh, well if everyone is fluffy about it it'll be okay!" is exactly why 7th ed 40k is the way it is right now.

 Powerfisting wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
And the old FOC worked precisely because of that "tax". It limited the amount of hurt you could throw at another player by filling a good chunk of your list with filler. Now that filler has mostly been thrown away, leaving players to pick and choose the units with the best firepower per point. Combined with the general increase in firepower over the past couple years, armies are becoming highly optimized leafblower lists.

That is true, but for my game in particular, an effort was made to allow normal dudes to do things that other dudes can't. I'm really not fond of anything being treated like a tax; even normal soldiers should be worth something. I take it you are a fan of the classic FOC?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
This is much healthier attitude to promote a wide and diverse range of personalized armies and game play styles.

Depending on player attitude is lazy design, though. designing something for theme while leaving something open for abuse and saying "oh, well if everyone is fluffy about it it'll be okay!" is exactly why 7th ed 40k is the way it is right now.

The problem with thematic force orgs, unless you also rebuild the units or even the game from the ground up, is that overpowered stuff is sometimes also fluffy. There really isn't anything unfluffy about a Saim-Hann army full of scatterbikes lead by a seer council that is also on bikes, but it is scary powerful.

Regarding the "troop tax," we had a discussion about this not too long ago. Personally, I feel that all units should be worth taking and fun to use. No one should have to spend $60+ on a couple squads of models that they don't enjoy using. While some eldar troop options (scatter bikes) are too good, I feel they've actually done a good job of making their troop options fun to use. Guardians bring snazzy guns and can be lead by warlocks. Avengers have less flash than guardians, but they're more durable and can use their improved gun range well in combination with battle focus. Rangers, while not impressive offensively, can hunt MCs and serve as cheap, sneaky objective holders. Even jetbikers (that don't spam heavy weapons) let you have a fast army without being forced to buy transports, and they can be a good core to a relatively durable non-vehicle eldar force.

@Wyldhunt.
If you control the rarity of units with the F.O.C. as the basic outline I proposed.The theme can be fluffy, but the worst excesses can be thinned out.
Additional restrictions can be put in place. Eg if a particular unit is OP you can make them an 0-2 Core choice, if that unit is a core of the theme.

Freedom without control is chaos.What I would like is a structure the allows players to pick the game play style they want, buy the minis they think are coolest.But let them play on the game area in a balanced and interesting way.

The 7th ed F.O.C is not straight forward, it is very complicated for what it tries to do.And there are no limitations to stop OP lists.

Lanrak wrote:
@Wyldhunt.
If you control the rarity of units with the F.O.C. as the basic outline I proposed.The theme can be fluffy, but the worst excesses can be thinned out.
Additional restrictions can be put in place. Eg if a particular unit is OP you can make them an 0-2 Core choice, if that unit is a core of the theme.

Freedom without control is chaos.What I would like is a structure the allows players to pick the game play style they want, buy the minis they think are coolest.But let them play on the game area in a balanced and interesting way.

The 7th ed F.O.C is not straight forward, it is very complicated for what it tries to do.And there are no limitations to stop OP lists.

I like what you're proposing in theory, but you run into the problem of thematically "core" units simply being better than other thematic core units. Eldar jetbikes would be the reasonable core to a Saim-Hann army. These are probably more powerful than the assault marines you'd see as part of an "8th company" army. An Iyanden army would probably treat wraithguard as common units. Wraith Guard are probably going to win out against a wych cult army.

Granted, you can limit these problems somewhat by, say, forcing people to have a ton of wraith guard (which are expensive) or putting mandatory weapon option restrictions on things like scatter bikes, but then you're getting into a whole other discussion.

I think it would be interesting to include some sort of comp system directly into the FOC, and then allow for special formations to vary from the usual army comp system in thematic ways. Something along the lines of having a "comp score" associated with the number of points in the game, for example, you'd play a 1850 point game with 15 "comp points".

Then have it so taking multiples of given units increases the "comp points" necessary to deploy that unit. For example, taking the first riptide might take 2 comp points, while taking the second takes 4, and the third could take 6 or even 8. This could naturally limit spam and ridiculously expensive units (knights, wraightknights, etc) in lower point games, as even if you can fit a 200+ point unit into the army with the basic requirements, you may not have the "comp points" to deploy it. You probably wouldn't want this escalation of "comp points" to apply to troops though, as that would be quite punishing.

This could also provide a push to ensure players actually use their units in an engaging fashion, rather than taking the minimum of something and saving the points for the stronger units. If that minimum unit of cultists is going to take 5% of my points, but 10-15% of my available "comp points", leaving it sitting in the backfield rather than actively participating in the game may not be as easy of a choice. This is of course a problem caused by a number of factors, such as the rules for objectives, but every little bit helps.

Then let special formations allow for heavily themed armies, like saim-hann armies removing comp penalties for taking multiples of jetbikes and skimmers, but doubling comp penalties for taking anything else, or lyanden armies doing something similar for wraith units and spirit seers. I'm sure there's a number of problems with this idea, but it'd be interesting to see a more solid system encouraging diverse or thematic armies built right into the rules.

@Wyldhunt.
This is where the level of options comes in in the Support and Restricted units, is used to balance out the core units.

Using SM as an example

Tac marines as theme , the support and restricted unit options include everything currently in the lists.

Assault marine theme could have Land Speeders and bike squads , Drop pod deployed units , and even DS Terminator units to back them up.
But NO HEAVY SUPPORT OPTIONS.

Devastator marines have, mainly armoured vehicles to back them up, including Dreads ,and Terminators in Land Raiders.
But no Fast attack options.

The Ist company theme would be much more restricted , Mainly Terminators with Sterngaurd/Vanguard support.And may be Scout units as restricted choice?
Either drop pod /deep strike, or land raider assaults type lists.
NO fast attack or Heavy support options.

The idea is the more focused the theme the more restrictive the options are .


The reason many units are seen as overpowered , is because they are used in conjunction with other units that compensate or negate any weakness they may have.
Where as a themed list can make all forces have similar amounts of weaknesses and strengths , but in different areas.

EG mobility , defense , offence , and cost.

If you look at WWII games for comparison , extreme opposite play styles, eg heavy armour vs light infantry .Do not result in one sided walk overs.
Because each army play style has defined strengtht and weaknesses.

IMO the reason 40k F.o.C fails is because it want to let everyone use everything from everywhere at once to promote short term sales.

Where as looking at theme and functions of every faction to build unique and interesting to play forces.Is better for long term game development and enjoyment.

@Lanrak

You have literally said the same thing four times now. We get it. Wyldhunt's argument was that there are themes that could never be balanced because some core choices would be objectively better than others. Using marines as an example, if I could take devastators as core, I would every time because assault marines and tactical marines are out- classed by devs every single time. The restrictions are moot because the benefit of having devs on core outwieghs every restriction you could ever have. No terminators? no problem; power armored devs out gun terminators and are more cost- effective. No fast attack options? that's moot because literally no one would get close enough to me for having fast attack choices to matter.

@Powerfisting.
If some units are objectively better no matter what list they appear in,They are under costed and no F.O.C can correct that .

Are devastator squads still bought as full Squad of 10 marines and split in to two combat squads with 3 bolters and 2 heavy weapons.?

Or has GW plc made the Devastator squads basically 4 heavy weapons with a Sgnt?(And optional additional 5 marines with bolters ?)

If GW plc has been messing with the organisation of units to charge more money for 'boxed sets', that mess up the internal balance of the game.

No F.O.C can correct that!

BUT if the game had basic internal balance where all options were costed appropriately.

Then the F.O.C could have a chance of provide wide and varied themes and play styles.

If you have been telling me my proposal can not work with the 7th ed 40k PV allocation and unit load outs because they are massively unbalanced.
Then I apologize for not understanding you earlier...

I was assuming we would work on the unit PV /load out , as we revised the themes for each faction.

My friends and I actually do what you propose and have 2 troops as the only requirement. There is no limit to the number of units of any one type. This was born out of my frustration at trying to field lots of HQ units (e.g. Chaos Lord, Sorceror, Greater Daemon & special character). The games don't get unbalanced because I rarely field many heavy support or fast attack choices. Usually, I have 4 HQ, 3 troops, 2 elites, 1 heavy support. Let's face it, HQ and elites are just so characterful.