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.

Hello all,

Recent discussion in a lot of forums seems like a vast majority of people are pretty sick of "soup" lists that seem to be everywhere. Even "pure" lists are soup in a way, for example, Chaos running Alpha Legion + one other legion to get the best rules on the best units, or Innari running multiple units from various Eldar sects in a "single" army. It also seems that people are pretty peeved that many lists revolve around spamming a few units to win, such as the PBC list that seems popular, Obliterator spam, etc.

I get it, its a game, and people can play how they want. I don't disagree.

However, I will say, in my own personal opinion, it makes the game extremely un-interesting; many of the "competitive" battle reports are pretty stale, unless its one guy testing new models or a unique strategy. Even many of the top LVO lists were based around bending or breaking the rules in some way.

I hear a lot of proposed fixes, and a lot of them are pretty great. In my opinion though... why not bring back the old FOC model?

For those of you who haven't been around for a while, the FOC model was thus:
You could have a Max of two HQ's, Three Elites, Three Fast Attack, Six Troops, and Three Heavy Support in your army.

The caveat to this model was that some armies would bend these rules to fit their playstyle. So, for example, some armies could have multiple HQ's in a single slot (like IG), some armies could make elite's into troops (Deathwing Terminators), etc.

While there were obvious problems with this system still, it worked. Each slot had its "optimal" models, but it took a lot more thinking and strategy to make your army work when working within limitations. You could even go so far as to have an "auxiliary FOC" for detachment armies, so for example your Ultramarines would use a normal FOC, but you can take one aux FOC for a small IG contingent.

I guess I'm just sentimental; I really liked the old FOC model, and I still build my armies more or less in the same manner. What are some of your thoughts? Do you like detachments, or do you feel there is a better way to do it?

Maybe when all of the codices have been released GW will ban soup lists. I don’t like them much either.

While it might be nice to go back to the chart I think that there would have to be some changes to reflect models that were not available during 3rd (like flyers).

Off the top of my head I think that it should look something generally like this:
3 HQ, 6 Troops, 3 each Elites, Fast, Heavy and, Flyers, 1 Fort, 1 LoW.

Of course you would be limited to one codex as well.

Honestly you could boil down use the Old FOC to limit everyone to use the Battalion Detachment. Requires 2 HQs and 3 Troops but it’s essentially the same. And if you want to take an allied force they have to be in a Patrol Detachment.

Honestly matched play is always going to have wonky lists. If you want mono-army lists instead of soup I propose running friendlies or narrative tourneys.

The old FoC was boring as hell. I spent many years wishing GW would ditch it or at the very least add some more different ones and that is what they have done. I don't see how having more variety in detachment types makes the game stale. In fact for me it makes games far more interesting. It's the same old units every time that makes an opponent's game/army stale if it even does such a thing. I am most definitely in favour of the various detachments. I'd probably try and come up with a couple more if I was GW.

You do realise nothing is stopping you from limiting your games to a single battalion each, right?

I certainly wouldn't complain if the game went back to the 5th FOC. Throw in a stricter allied system without shared bonuses for people with fluffy, mixed armies, and ensure that all codices have appropriate FOC swaps for different troops (marine captains on bikes grant bike troops, so on).

I think the post 5th edition army building paradigm has created more problems than it solved, but the cat's out of the bag. Then again, I also wouldn't complain if flyers and superheavies were removed from standard games of 40k.

I'm going to come out and say it: GW is NOT going to restrict the use of multiple codexes for the sake of balance as it shoots lore in the foot.

IF we see bans to using multiple armies it'll be in the tournament scene, which don't seem to care about it yet.

Not going to happen.

The simplest reason is that it would require a massive rewrite of the codexes that have already been released and it would also mean a decent faction restructuring.

When I talk about faction restructuring I am talking about all those mini-factions that need to be reabsorbed into a larger codex. Ynnari, Harlequins would be absorbed into Craftworlds, Inquisition would be absorbed into AM, and so on and so on.

The beauty of soup currently is that GW can now allow themselves to release smaller factions that can be souped into existing factions. Win-win for GW really, as well as us.

There is no need to bring back the FOC, it is very much still here, it is just called a battalion detachment now. And you can definitely limit games to two batallions or a single brigade if you want to. I don't see how it solves anything gamerelated, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:

The simplest reason is that it would require a massive rewrite of the codexes that have already been released and it would also mean a decent faction restructuring.

I really don't think it would require any rewriting. It would be a simple thing to restrict people to, say, a batallion and patrol detachment, or just a single brigade. I don't see how the game would be much improved, though. Regards

I wouldn't complain if they went back to the old FOC, but at this point, souping is predestined.

After all, just look at how many keywords units have in the Imperial Guard codex:

Ministorum Priests have "Adeptus Ministorum" and "Astra Militarum" in both lists.

Techpriest Enginseers have "Adeptus Mechanicus" and "Astra Militarum" in the AM list, but "Adeptus Mechanicus" and "Cult Mechanicus" in mechanicus lists.

Crusaders are the same as Ministorum Priests.

If you say "take mono-faction", are Imperial Guard prevented from taking Tech-Priests? And if not, then why arbitrarily allow Vanguard detachments of Guard tech-priests but ban a guard player from taking Supreme Command detachments of Mechanicus techpriests?

And where do Inquisitors go? Or do you make some allowance for soup, but ban it from other iterations for some reason?

I just don't get the hate for soup. Competitive play is wonky, to be sure, but would be even if lists were forced to be "mono" anyways. Soup is way fluffy, and that's why I support it - I enjoy the fluff.

I don't think that anyone is under the impression that GW will act on this suggestion. I think it's more blowing off steam at soup armies.

IRL I'd like to see events limit armies to 2 detachments with the second detachment being limited to a patrol or supreme command detachment.

Old FOC was dumb for many factions, and it's a nice thing that we got rid of it.

Only changes i would make are:

1) Clarify once and for all if you can use stratagems cross faction
2) Patrol detachments do not give access to stratagems and "Chapter tactics".

Apart from that soups are not a bad thing for the game.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I don't think that anyone is under the impression that GW will act on this suggestion. I think it's more blowing off steam at soup armies.

IRL I'd like to see events limit armies to 2 detachments with the second detachment being limited to a patrol or supreme command detachment.

Right, but what people consider "soup" now wasn't soup in, say, 4th edition.

E.G. my 4th edition armoured company lists had 3 enginseers in it to fix the tanks. I could do that in this edition with a Vanguard Detachment (forcing me to buy an IG HQ for no reason) or I could do it with a Mechanicus Supreme Command detachment - at which point its suddenly soup, despite still being 3 enginseers with some tanks like it's always been for edition after edition.

Similarly, a buddy of mine who has always run Ministorum Priests with his guard can either run them in a Ministorum Vanguard with Uriah Jocobus as HQ, or run them as elites choices in some other Astra Militarum detachment. One is soup, the other is not.

The Imperium has always cooperated in its ranks since at least 1st Edition. I'm just surprised people are so triggered by it now.

I think the new detachments are a fine addition, it’s just that Command Points and Strategms have got out of control and certain units haven’t been well-tested for how they operate in allied armies.

pismakron wrote:
I really don't think it would require any rewriting. It would be a simple thing to restrict people to, say, a batallion and patrol detachment, or just a single brigade. I don't see how the game would be much improved, though. Regards

Again, nothing is stopping you restricting yourself to these.

I like the multi-detachment lists. I don't remember chaos player complaining back in 3rd and 4th ed when they could have marines, demons, and traitor guard all in the same list.

It's fluffy for most armies to be able to take like wise aligned allies. The only downside is some armies don't have allies. Orcs, Tau, and Necrons are stuck solo.

 BlackLobster wrote:
The old FoC was boring as hell. I spent many years wishing GW would ditch it or at the very least add some more different ones and that is what they have done. I don't see how having more variety in detachment types makes the game stale. In fact for me it makes games far more interesting. It's the same old units every time that makes an opponent's game/army stale if it even does such a thing. I am most definitely in favour of the various detachments. I'd probably try and come up with a couple more if I was GW.

QFT. Exactly my opinion in this.

Are you mad? You want this back:

 Stormonu wrote:
I think the new detachments are a fine addition, it’s just that Command Points and Strategms have got out of control and certain units haven’t been well-tested for how they operate in allied armies.

Honestly, a way to fix the issue of Command Points and Stratagems would be to have more elite armies/unit choices take up multiple FOC slots.
It cuts down on soup a bit more while at the same time allowing for those armies when fielded as 'pure' choices to catch up with the lesser armies for CP/Stratagem usage.


With regards to 'certain units', I wonder how much of that might have to do with weird combinations popping up that might not have been expected or just in general how people still seem to play wildly different to how GW themselves do.

 zedmeister wrote:
Are you mad? You want this back:

Spoiler:

Yeah...FOC was one of the many things holding me back from playing previous editions - especially since so many torunaments kept feeling like each FOC needed to be tweaked/banned/modified in order to make tourney play fair.

I get that older players have this whole 'who moved my cheese' thing about lists that share a major faction but consist of several sub-factions, but GW has been moving in this direction for a while. Newer players like myself have happily bought into it just for the fluff reasons alone and banning us isn't going to fix a lot of the problems that people blame detachments for.

Ynarri can be just as posted in a solo-keyword build as they are in the multi-keyword build. Same for AM, Space Marines, Chaos, etc. If there is an interaction problem between two subfactions than the offending model needs errata, not the entire game's core rules. It's like saying that Index AM Artillery was too good so they should have just banned artillery form the game.

As much as players will min and max and take advantage of faction abuse......

GW kinda went out of its way to make it so that we can play with any and all models we have ever bought. We can play them in any army (I hate flyers and low in non apoc games)

This way everyone is happy to play how they want.

Now in tournaments or matched play I would like to see a -1 CP if your detachment or army make up has for each non core units.

Eldar and Dark Eldar should not work as cleanly together as an all dark elder raider force. So a mixed detachment or each add on one is a -1 cp

So those marines brought in some basilisks. Surely those slow moving gunners don't have the same tactics or flexible battle training to work perfectly in sync like Marines.

Legal yes...but it will cost you a CP.

Ynarri that everyone complains about. Well....not too many CPs if you draw from multiple factions/craftworlds

Ulthwe and Beil-Tan.....yes they ally. Rarely they see eye to eye on how to fight.....so there again a penalty in CPs will lower their synergy.

Seems like the easiest fix to s a lot of the complaints lately.

 Primark G wrote:
Maybe when all of the codices have been released GW will ban soup lists. I don’t like them much either.

That would be adding limitations thus reducing buyer base. Expect more of widening so that ork and necron players have reason to buy ig or tyranid models rather than otherway around

Dude... people abused the hell out of the game back then and continue to do so... nostalgia won't fix your game! What will fix it is changing the people! If we encourage more fluffy fun play styles rather than "buuur! I WANNA WIN! The only thing that makes me happy is abusing game rules so I can use plastic figures to win at something! ". I say 40k needs to become more like DnD where a focus is on campaigns and narrative. A loss then isn't always a loss but just a change in an overall narrative. It also means that people might want to fucs more on a custom force that suits them rather than what suits the meta (also if a jerk brings an OP bs list them the gm can just knock him out of the water).

Keep soup! Allow my inquisition army to be as fluffy and soupy as they're supposed to be!

The problem with soup lists gameplay-wise is really is just the ability to share army-specific benefits. GW was initially heading back down the slippery slope to 7th (everyone can use their allies' strategems/auras/psychic powers!) but seems to have reigned it back a bit. There is an inherent unfairness to xenos as well when imperium lists can patch holes in their army with another army, but if each army has enough valid options to stand alone then it will be less of a problem.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

pismakron wrote:
I really don't think it would require any rewriting. It would be a simple thing to restrict people to, say, a batallion and patrol detachment, or just a single brigade. I don't see how the game would be much improved, though. Regards

Again, nothing is stopping you restricting yourself to these.

I agree. The FOC does not need to come back, it is already in the game. And people can opt to play soup-restricted mono-detachment games without any changes to the rules.

 supreme overlord wrote:
Keep soup! Allow my inquisition army to be as fluffy and soupy as they're supposed to be!

This. My Ordo Hereticus army loves the soup. I really enjoy mixing in an extra 500pts of another faction just for a bit of a change up. The FOC can go jump off a cliff

The current detachments are fine, you just shouldn't get a Chapter (Craftworld, Regiment, Hive World, etc.) trait unless all models in the army (instead of the detachment) have that Chapter keyword.

That way there's an actual decision to be made about whether its worth losing your specialization bonus for the flexibility to take units from outside that specialization.

I love the current detachment system. You can start collecting armies and you get to play with them without having to break your bank (and sanity) by purchasing a 2000 point army right off the bat. Sure some armies lack this option and there are some balance implications sure, but for collectors and for GW it's a pretty nice deal.