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 trying to work out a force organization method for my homebrew rules and wanted to discuss the basics here.

Let's rework the basic FOC categories into a WFB style setup. We have the Command, Elite, Specialist, Core and Support units. Command units are the classic HQs, Elites are... Elites as we know them. Specialists are solo units that aren't quite the same beatsticks as the classic HQs but are have unique abilities that they are really good at. This may also include some multi- model units that are also niche type units like melee centurions and the like. Support is a mash- up of FA and HS units that are too common to be elites or specialists but otherwise too powerful or specialized for the Core category. And Core units are all the classic troops, but also some FA/ HS /Elite units that don't see a lot of screen time and/or are just overshadowed by elite units that are plain better. So, in my game, Assault marines are core, for instance. In my orks list, Boyz, StormBoyz are core and I'm debating on putting Nobs in the core category too, so some infantry in trukks can be a more solid core for a speedfreaks theme.

Let's also say this all exists in a perfect, rigorously playtested universe where core units, unlike troops as we know them, are desirable units to build forces around rather than a tax. This, ideally, would be for a number of reasons, including relative point- efficiency, accessibility, and a more healthy general meta where it is actually desirable and effective to have a solid core to an army supported by a smaller number of elites and support units to help them out if for nothing else, the sake of practicality. The later point would be derivative of the first two in my own perfect world, but then I would be grossly underestimating the creativity of hundreds of gamers.

So, the basic element would be an "Allied Detachment," at least in sense of scope and scale; one slot for each category, but two core units. Then, make it clear that there are no minimums. You do not have to take two troops and an HQ. Then, I have two ideas:

my first approach was inspired by highlander challenges. Every time you fill the entire chart, you get more slots. So, if I take 1 Command, 2 Core, 1 Specialist, and 1 Support unit, I get more of each slot. I liked this at first, but the more I thought of it, the more styles and themes I thought of that would be impossible to pull off.

My next idea was for some arbitrary number of selections to be made that would generate points that could open more slots. So, if I take the classic comp (or its equivalent in my universe) of 1 Command and 2 Core units, that's three points I can spend on opening more slots, in a random example. It doesn't have to be 1 to 1, but that's the basic idea. Then, in place of (or maybe in addition to) FOC swaps, some units could have special rules that open more slots. For instance, a Big Mek could grant additional Support Slots.

Thoughts?

I actually quite like it. It would definitely be a good way to sort out some of the imbalance in units we see; just as you said, making troops good.

I also like the idea of adding slots for taking other slots. Say, taking another core choice grants another support choice or specialist choice or something. It would again get people to use their models.

And to keep this balanced perhaps add the percentage rule from WHFB (Or at least something similar) to stop people deliberately MSU'ing just to unlock another slot. I mean, it would hardly be fair if for taking an extra minimal unit of Scouts to get a slot that you could then use for super expensive Centurions or something.

This would definitely need some serious math-hammer, but I think it could be very interesting indeed.

I wouldn't be a fan of the percentage rule from WFB, though. Discouraging MSU builds would go along with making troops desirable, but on a larger scale; there needs to be something going on so that the commitment to bulked out units is something we want. I'm not sure what that would be, but I'm partial to the HH setup where MSUs are taxed and additional models come at a discount.

I've also experimented with an even more radical setup where the FOC is a "radial" pattern where each category occupies a fixed space and selections from one category can only be used to unlock selections in the categories adjacent to it. The alternative to FOC swaps here would be being able to alter the order of the positions of the categories. Each army list could potentially have its own version of this setup where the categories exist in different positions relative to each other.

 Powerfisting wrote:
I've also experimented with an even more radical setup where the FOC is a "radial" pattern where each category occupies a fixed space and selections from one category can only be used to unlock selections in the categories adjacent to it. The alternative to FOC swaps here would be being able to alter the order of the positions of the categories. Each army list could potentially have its own version of this setup where the categories exist in different positions relative to each other.

I'm honestly not entirely sure I understood that fully, but from what I do get I think it would be interesting. I think that would best be presented visually.

 Powerfisting wrote:
I wouldn't be a fan of the percentage rule from WFB, though. Discouraging MSU builds would go along with making troops desirable, but on a larger scale; there needs to be something going on so that the commitment to bulked out units is something we want. I'm not sure what that would be, but I'm partial to the HH setup where MSUs are taxed and additional models come at a discount.

I've also experimented with an even more radical setup where the FOC is a "radial" pattern where each category occupies a fixed space and selections from one category can only be used to unlock selections in the categories adjacent to it. The alternative to FOC swaps here would be being able to alter the order of the positions of the categories. Each army list could potentially have its own version of this setup where the categories exist in different positions relative to each other.

I think I follow you. So something like this:

Imagining a clock face, you'd have an HQ positioned at 12, 3, 6, and 9. Next to each of these HQ positions, you'd have a troop choice directly to your left and one of the other options (Elites, Heavy Support, Fast Attack, Specialists) immediately to your right. Fast Attack would be at, let's say, 11, and Heavy Support would be opposite it at 5 because fast forces aren't generally paired with heavy machinery. You'd start selecting your forces from one of those four HQ spots, and then you'd unlock other units by moving left or right (clockwise or counterclockwise) on the clock. So you could either go to your left and pick up a troop right away, or you could go right and grab whichever one of the non-troop choices was to your right. So if I wanted to run a lot of Fast Attack choices, I might choose the HQ slot located at 12, instantly grab the FA at 11, pick up some troops at 1 or 10, then pick up either another fast attack at 9 (wait, I just said 9 was an HQ. Imagine this is an abnormally large clock with too many digits) or an Elite at 2.

That metaphor sort of broke down, but is that roughly what you mean, Powerfisting? That could be neat.

As for handling things Fantasy-style, I'm not a huge fan of it. Being forced to spam lots of troops can be pretty meh if you don't particularly like your faction's troops for fluff or aesthetic reasons. I'm assuming no one dislikes their troops for mechanical reasons because you've suggested revamping them to be more useful/better. Which I fully support. The "troop tax" in Fantasy combined with my lack of appreciation for the the core units' models is actually the main thing that kept me from ever getting into Fantasy.

Also, this is great for, let's say, imperial guard or necrons or maybe even space marines, but lots of armies don't feel quite right spamming troops. Which sounds weird, but let's look at examples. Craftworld Iyanden is known for having more undead soldiers than living ones. They're all about taking tons of wraith guard and wraith lords, but not many living troops (such as guardians). Biel-Tan is all about the sword wind, combining a diverse group of specialized aspect warrior squads to pull off a symphonic combo of attacks. Deathwing Dark Angels are big on taking lots of Terminators, but not so big on taking lots of tac marines.

Even though troops theoretically make up the bulk of a given faction's forces, 40k games don't always represent the minions. Sometimes they represent the boss monsters and their super-elite beer buddies going on a surgical mission to deliver a telling blow at a critical location. I'd suggest that your rules might be more at home in Apocolypse style games, but I'm not sure having all those infantry models to move around would actually be conducive to such a large, slow game.

Sorry, man (woman?). I'm full of complaints and not so full of help. Personally, I like the idea of a smaller-scale form of 40k (the rough equivalent of a 1000 point game) with fewer models, where seeing more than one tank is a rarity, and where the actions zooms in a bit more on the infantry and the characters leading them. In such a game, having heavily restrictive detachments that define the flavor of your army and strongly limit access to units that don't fit the detachment's theme would be the way I'd like to go. But now I"m getting off-topic.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:
I wouldn't be a fan of the percentage rule from WFB, though. Discouraging MSU builds would go along with making troops desirable, but on a larger scale; there needs to be something going on so that the commitment to bulked out units is something we want. I'm not sure what that would be, but I'm partial to the HH setup where MSUs are taxed and additional models come at a discount.

I've also experimented with an even more radical setup where the FOC is a "radial" pattern where each category occupies a fixed space and selections from one category can only be used to unlock selections in the categories adjacent to it. The alternative to FOC swaps here would be being able to alter the order of the positions of the categories. Each army list could potentially have its own version of this setup where the categories exist in different positions relative to each other.

I think I follow you. So something like this:

Imagining a clock face, you'd have an HQ positioned at 12, 3, 6, and 9. Next to each of these HQ positions, you'd have a troop choice directly to your left and one of the other options (Elites, Heavy Support, Fast Attack, Specialists) immediately to your right. Fast Attack would be at, let's say, 11, and Heavy Support would be opposite it at 5 because fast forces aren't generally paired with heavy machinery. You'd start selecting your forces from one of those four HQ spots, and then you'd unlock other units by moving left or right (clockwise or counterclockwise) on the clock. So you could either go to your left and pick up a troop right away, or you could go right and grab whichever one of the non-troop choices was to your right. So if I wanted to run a lot of Fast Attack choices, I might choose the HQ slot located at 12, instantly grab the FA at 11, pick up some troops at 1 or 10, then pick up either another fast attack at 9 (wait, I just said 9 was an HQ. Imagine this is an abnormally large clock with too many digits) or an Elite at 2.

That metaphor sort of broke down, but is that roughly what you mean, Powerfisting? That could be neat.

This is exactly what I meant. You explained it better than I could have and now I'm mad for not thinking of the clock face metaphor.

Ha! Well, I think you'll really probably want to use a clock with at least 16 digits instead of 12. That way, you can sprinkle in more FA/HS/Elites/Specialists here and there and make it feel like the player is specializing even when they're playing larger points. Otherwise, your "fast attack-centric" army will just end up having 1 or 2 FA and 1 or 2 elites in the example I gave.

Also, I imagine you could probably handle deathwing and other non-standard forces with modified clocks. So a ravenwing clock might replace the troops areas of the clock with terminator-only slots and make FA and maybe HS especially rare.

I will re post an idea here I have proposed before.

For each HQ unit selected , the player can take 2 to 8 Common units.
For every 2 Common units the player can select 1 Support unit.
For every 2 Support units the player can select 1 Special unit.

Each faction can have 6 to 10 themed lists, which determine what units are classed as common support or special for that list.
Maybe use the old Klan , Craftworld, Regiments lists as a basis etc.

Lanrak wrote:
I will re post an idea here I have proposed before.

For each HQ unit selected , the player can take 2 to 8 Common units.
For every 2 Common units the player can select 1 Support unit.
For every 2 Support units the player can select 1 Special unit.

Each faction can have 6 to 10 themed lists, which determine what units are classed as common support or special for that list.
Maybe use the old Klan , Craftworld, Regiments lists as a basis etc.

I kind of like this. You'd run into issues where some players will just spam scatbikes while others are stuck with assault marines, but that's a different issue entirely. This seems like a nice way to do a themed force. You could even roll some common formation style bonuses into this based on your "detachment." So if you take an Assault Company force, you'd have to take an HQ with a jump pack, assault marines would be common, and you might get a nifty bonus like the ability to jink with jump infantry.

Similarly , Iyanden detachments would require your first HQ be a spirit seer but would make wraith units common and maybe extend the spirit seer's spirit sight range or let wraith guard/blades take warlocks as sargeants or something.

@Wyldhunt.
If you wanted to stop players taking multiple units that gave them a massive synergistic bonus.(Spamming.)
It is quite simple to put restriction on some units, that address the synergistic effects you find at play testing.
EG 0 to 2 units of X.
Where unit X is proven to gain game breaking potential if 3 or more units are taken.

I do not mean for common units to be restricted to just one type.

For example a SM 'Damocles strike force' A Deep Striking Assault force.(Low orbit assault.)

Could have Jump Pack Equipped HQ/or Drop pod HQ.

Common units
SM Jump Pack Assault Marines.

Land Speeder Tornado Squadron

Drop pod Tactical Squads.

Land Speeder scout carrier.(I forgot the name!)

Supportl units.
Land speeder Typhoon

Drop pod Dreadnoughts

Drop pod Devastator Squad (ten man.)

Specialist units.
Teleporting terminator squads

Orbital bombardment/Thunderhawk straffing run.

Probably not the best example , it was just off the top of my head!

I am sure given enough time we could get well thought out lists that reflect the background and are fun to play and fun to play against.