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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I still think that having a Knight + guardsmen + Space marine army is more fluffy and interesting than having 3 different forgeworlds in a single list of admech

I don't disagree with you at all, but we exist in a world where GW over-compensates for problems (perceived or otherwise) in their rules.

Soup was a legitimate problem, so they basically eliminated it by punishing armies that do so.

Folks will probably say they'd make exceptions for narrative gaming, BUT...

The current detachment/ soup system is fantastic for narrative gaming, especially when combined with escalation, game size mechanics and campaign play.

Returning to a single FOC would crush pretty much everything I've done with this hobby since 8th. I use detachments to tell stories about alliances and betrayals, about advancement and training, and a whole host of other themes.

I've been unofficially fielding detachments since the Witch Hunter dex- rather than a single 3k army, I had 1.5 k of pure, virtuous sisters and a 1.5 k Pennitent Legion led by an Inquisitor; most frequently, the armies fought separately, but in times of great peril, they combined. If I remember correctly, the armies were built in such a way that a combined force could be fielded in a single FOC because that was the only way to legally do it.

If you're running a map based campaign where the rule is that you must have a presence at a territory to maintain control of it, detachments are awesome. You'd start with a giant Brigade occupying a single territory, but as they captured ground, Patrols split off to maintain control of captured assets. Having a variety of detachments to choose from becomes an important strategic consideration in this type of game.

If you want to bring back standardized, mono-FOCs, do it to the 2k matched game- after all, that's probably what you were proposing anyway.

But don't make the change in such a way that it impacts narrative, because detachments are just too good as a storytelling tool to let go.

The whole point is that the army-specific FOCs would be narrative driven; a way of matching narrative with rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The whole point is that the army-specific FOCs would be narrative driven; a way of matching narrative with rules.

Yeah, but it just doesn't work as well, nor is it as broad and diverse as what we've already got.

Like if I start a 25 PL Crusade, my commander is good enough to command the Patrol detachment that I'm obligated to use at that level. But if he's going to step up and eventually command a battalion, he better get working on some agendas, because troops aren't going to respect a battalion commander that hasn't been battle hardened. And it's kinda cool to be able to pull in a detachment of off-world, allied troops from another regiment. I love fielding multiple Orders in my SOB army- the whole narrative thread for that faction in our campaign revolves around multi-Order armies. And you might have a Bespoke FOC that includes multiple Orders in the Sisters dex, but look at the number of combinations we have with the existing system! In story terms, the story potential of an OoOML battalion + a Bloody Rose vanguard is RADICALLY different than the story potential of a Bloody Rose Battalion and an OoOML Vanguard- and I kept these two combinations as similar as possible in order to illustrate the point.

I can see where you're coming from with some armies- Whitescars Biker Army as a bespoke FOC comes to mind. I don't have the DA dex so I'm not sure to what degree the existing detachment system facilitates Ravenwing/ Deathwing, and I'm not sure if that's adaptable to Whitescars Bikers or not.

But suffice it to say, with all the bitching about bespoke faction/subfaction bespoke content in this and other threads like it, I'm surprised to see anyone suggest bespoke FOCs when we've got a diverse system in the base rules that seems to fit most armies well enough. After all, aren't detachments kinda the USRs of bespoke FOCs? Isn't it supposed to be an ideal thing amongst the "40k is broken and needs fixing" set when a problem is solved by base rules rather than codex rules?

Either way, propose whatever changes you want to matched play; I won't object at all- I don't play it, why would I? Finally, I suppose if GW did change them, I could continue to use detachment rules anyway, but I'd rather not have to house-rule more often than necessary.

 jeff white wrote:
Foc is a way to level factions. Designers can use this to “balance” factions.

For illustration, eldar are supposed to be dying out. So guardians should cost more points than equivalent troops for factions with more expendable bodies, I.e. most everyone else. The troop tax as it is called is a way to offset eldar superiority in other areas e.g. fast skimmers, high ap long range energy weapons, warp jump and defensive fields.

On the other hand, orks should have plentiful troops and pay relatively more for high tech high mobility. So, to have a kff requires a big mek and is limited by big mek slots, being hq slots, so often limited to one or max two army wide.

In-universe lore is an excellent way to balance rules for the game, definitely. that's why all tyranids and orks should cost 0 points - they have billions upon billions of them! And custodes should be 5000 points, since theres only like 12 of them.

Eh. The FOC doesn't seem like a great solution to the skew problem, tbh. Like, high-concept I get how it might do that. But in practice, I don't think it succeeded in doing that. I remember running into parking lot skew lists in 5th edition that basically invalidated all of my shuriken weapons and caused me to ignore chunks of my codex because I was compelled to take as much AT as I could get to try and account for those skew lists. In 5th, you could also lean really hard into infantry spam and just drown enemies with too few shots in bodies; basically stat-checking their raw number of shots.

And that's before you factor in detachment-modifying rules that basically just let you partially ignore the FOC.

So the FOC...
* Did not prevent skew lists from being a thing.
* Did invalidate some thematic list concepts (which may or may not have been skew lists and may or may not have been OP).

The current army building rules have their own failings, but a return to the FOC seems like a sidegrade. Especially if we're talking about all the "variant detachment" rules we'd have to introduce for various armies.

Right now the FOC is purposeless because you can just take whatever you want anyway. The "structure" we have with the different FOCs is just a facade.

A specific FOC would return that structure to the game. Remove the "But I want lots of Heavy Support!" FOC or the "But I just want more Elites!" FOC.

People complained once that Iron Warriors got a 4th HS slot. Seems quaint in comparison to what we've got these days.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Right now the FOC is purposeless because you can just take whatever you want anyway. The "structure" we have with the different FOCs is just a facade.

A specific FOC would return that structure to the game. Remove the "But I want lots of Heavy Support!" FOC or the "But I just want more Elites!" FOC.

People complained once that Iron Warriors got a 4th HS slot. Seems quaint in comparison to what we've got these days.

I mean, I get what you're saying, but isn't that still just trading one set of flaws for another? As I pointed out, the FOC didn't prevent you from taking skew lists; your army could be nothing but tanks and a handful of cheap infantry hiding inside them. And being forced to go back to it would make it harder to field like a Death Wing list that should reasonably have lots of terminator squads but not necessarily any troop units.

The problems people are pointing out with the old FOC is less an issue with the FOC and more a consequence of cases where certain armies could work around the intended restriction of the FOC.

IG taking 1-3 heavy tanks per HS slot was a problem with the specific tank entries. It was as if they could take 9 HS choices instead of the three they'd normally be allowed.

Guard being guard perhaps they should've been able to trade something for an extra HS choice, with vehicles still being 1 vehicle per HS slot. Or some thing where every troop choice beyond your compulsory ones gave you an extra HS slot (quite intentionally a troop tax). You could still do a mechanized force using chimeras if you wanted of course.

The problems with the FOC arose because of the ways the later codexes let people break it.

Again we're talking about matched competitive play where there is some, however mild, expectation that armies be roughly balanced. In a competitive environment, putting more restrictions on list assembly allows the designers to better balance whole army costs and keeps the playing field somewhat more level and analogous.

I'd also contend that forcing a more consistent army setup via a common FOC reduces the variance and skew-iness of lists and reduces the likelihood of bad matchups. If everyone is forced to take more of a TAC list I think it's healthier for the game and puts more emphasis on battle field tactics rather than army list bastardizations.

Players don't have to use the FOC if they agree not to. They can just use whatever units they want.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I mean, I get what you're saying, but isn't that still just trading one set of flaws for another? As I pointed out, the FOC didn't prevent you from taking skew lists; your army could be nothing but tanks and a handful of cheap infantry hiding inside them.

And I get what you're saying, but I think some structure with list building is better than the meaningless "just take whatever you want" structure that the FOC pretends to be right now.

The FOC has also been used as a method of increasing sales rather than making the game any better. I think certain vehicle squadrons are a good example of this ("Guard players only buy three big tanks!" "Then let 'em bring 9... no... 11!"). It is why, I suspect, the number of 0-1 units (like Oblits, as an example) started to vanish from books and become unlimited.

Plus I advocate for specific solutions to specific problems. Parking lots of Leman Russes are not a fault of the FOC. They're a fault of the Guard list itself. Fix that first, then the FOC side of things would sort itself out.

Wyldhunt wrote:
And being forced to go back to it would make it harder to field like a Death Wing list that should reasonably have lots of terminator squads but not necessarily any troop units.

Which is why I prefer faction-specific FOCs. It lets you have those kinds of armies - and Deathwing is a wonderful example - without having to have a system as meaningless as the one we have now.

So, pulling it out of thin air, something like:

Iyanden Spirit Host
1-3 HQ
3-8 Elites
0-4 Heavy Support
0-2 Flyers
0-X Dedicated Transports

All units other than Dedicated Transports must have the Wraith Construct or Psyker Keywords. All non-Flyer units with the 'Spirit Host' Keyword gain "Objective Secured".

Now the specifics of the amount of each slot is flexible, but as an example, I'd much rather have that as the method of fielding an Iyanden army that's just "Take a Vanguard and that'll do!".

jeff white wrote:And as for amateur, this is the way things were. You wanna be insulting, be that way. Doesn’t change facts. Just shows ignorance. Won’t ruin my day. Does make me wonder why I bother engaging with people of a certain caliber but whatevs. You do you.

I apologize. I am not trying to be insulting or condescending, I am literally saying that this idea of skewing costs to encourage/discourage fluff-based choices is something that only ever seems to come up as a suggestion from fans. It's easy to exploit, fundamentally misses the point of what points are supposed to do, and I don't know of any professional designers (or successful games) using it as a mechanic. Adjust choices, limit capabilities, don't skew points.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Everyone would always have the standard FOC available to them (slightly expanded and more scalable to game size), but each faction would have their own unique FOC (maybe more, if appropriate). An Eldar one that emphasises Elites is a great example of something that could exist. I picture a Tyranid one that branches outwards like a web as Synapse creatures are taken (kinda like how 2nd Ed Space Marine did it). A Word Bearer 'Summoning Circle' one that emphasises taking multiple Daemon units alongside CSMs (and none of this "You took a Daemon, so your troops forgot your core rules!" nonsense purity bonuses). That Iyanden one I mentioned with a heavy emphasis on Wraith constructs. And so on.

I like that. Basically instead of a generic FOC, it's more like a faction-specific TOE.

Wyldhunt wrote:I mean, I get what you're saying, but isn't that still just trading one set of flaws for another? As I pointed out, the FOC didn't prevent you from taking skew lists; your army could be nothing but tanks and a handful of cheap infantry hiding inside them. And being forced to go back to it would make it harder to field like a Death Wing list that should reasonably have lots of terminator squads but not necessarily any troop units.

In 4th Ed you had three HS slots so that meant three tanks, and Deathwing got a special rule that let them count Terminators as troops. Tyranids couldn't take six Flyrants, but Ravenwing got to have all bikes.

Generic FOC prevented tank-stacking while still allowing fluffy forces to adjust it slightly. The key is that those exceptions to the structure were limited, fluff-based, and balanced in other ways.

You could still tank stack with the Armored Company list (I did) in 4th, but it had other drawbacks to make it a bit less abusive.

(Don't get me wrong, still a problem against unprepared opponents tho)

Armoured Company is a good example, because there are basically three phases to playing that list:

1. "OMG! I have an entire army of tanks!"
2. "Wow. My opponent really can't do much to me."
3. "None of my opponents can really do much to me. This isn't fun anymore..."

I've played Armoured Companies a few times and yeah, the novelty of all tanks, all the time wears off pretty quickly, especially during the third turn of the second game, where you've systematically annihilated all the things that can damage your tanks and your opponent is left floundering as they try to get rear AV10 shots on Russes that are in my DZ and other stuff like that.

But, that's a problem with the AC list, not a problem with the FOC.

Current method would be more impactful if they reduced the CP so it was more valuable, which might solve other issues, too.

Mezmorki wrote:The problems people are pointing out with the old FOC is less an issue with the FOC and more a consequence of cases where certain armies could work around the intended restriction of the FOC.

IG taking 1-3 heavy tanks per HS slot was a problem with the specific tank entries. It was as if they could take 9 HS choices instead of the three they'd normally be allowed.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I mean, I get what you're saying, but isn't that still just trading one set of flaws for another? As I pointed out, the FOC didn't prevent you from taking skew lists; your army could be nothing but tanks and a handful of cheap infantry hiding inside them.

And I get what you're saying, but I think some structure with list building is better than the meaningless "just take whatever you want" structure that the FOC pretends to be right now.
...
Plus I advocate for specific solutions to specific problems. Parking lots of Leman Russes are not a fault of the FOC. They're a fault of the Guard list itself. Fix that first, then the FOC side of things would sort itself out.

The thing is, you could still build skew lists even without special exceptions to the FOC like vehicle squadrons or force org slot manipulators. IG, for instance, could (iirc) take hell hounds and in their FA slots, russes in their HS slots, and pack their mandatory troop choices and HQs into chimeras. So even if they were stuck with the "one tank per slot" limitation like most armies, they could still build skew lists.

Similarly, marines could run razorback spam backed up by HS tanks and Elite slot dreadnaughts. I think BA could even take the Baal Predator in the FA slot, but I'm not sure about that one. Craftworlders were less good at it, but they could field all tanks (or wraith lords) with DAVU (dire avenger vehicle upgrade) units hiding inside them and wraith guard as troops which in modern terms translates to having an entire army of T6, 7 and 8. Tau would probably be similar in modern terms now that they have big suits in several force org roles.

What I'm getting at is that the FOC didn't do a great job of preventing skew, and that's partly because what units go in which slots seems to be based more on "feel" than on specific traits. If you can fit enough vehicles (or hordes or whatever kind of skew you're running) into the slots you have available, then it doesn't particularly matter what those slots are when it comes to solving the skew problem. You could try to address that by changing force org roles to reflect units' traits better, but that kind of change wouldn't necessarily need a force org chart to be effective. At that point, what you'd really want would be more of an army points percentage-based cap. Ex: "Only 40% of your army points may be spent on units with the 'Heavy Armor' battlefield role."

So, pulling it out of thin air, something like:

Iyanden Spirit Host
1-3 HQ
3-8 Elites
0-4 Heavy Support
0-2 Flyers
0-X Dedicated Transports

All units other than Dedicated Transports must have the Wraith Construct or Psyker Keywords. All non-Flyer units with the 'Spirit Host' Keyword gain "Objective Secured".

Now the specifics of the amount of each slot is flexible, but as an example, I'd much rather have that as the method of fielding an Iyanden army that's just "Take a Vanguard and that'll do!".

Agreed that the, "Just take a Vanguard," approach is very flawed, I kind of like this in theory. However, I worry about the execution. A couple things:
A.) Even in the example you gave, I have issues with that detachment. Sure, Iyanden is known for its wraith units, but they do have other stuff as well. It seems like I ought to be able to support my wraith units with a squad of banshees, for instance. Or a unit of war walkers now that there are plenty of war machines to go around among the surviving guardian ranks. I'm nit-picking here to give an idea of the kinds of issues you'd have to solve for every single special detachment you create.

B.) You risk ending up with haves and have-nots. I play craftworld Iybraesil. It's a canon craftworld, but it's not one of the big five that GW bothered creating rules for in the codex. So there's a decent chance that, if GW were to switch to a system like the one you're proposing, that my particular army would be left unsupported. And what about a hypothetical player whose homebrewed craftworld's fluff is that they're really into swooping hawks the same way Iybraesil is really into banshees?

C.) The Iyanden detachment you've pitched there would, itself, be kind of skew-y. Pretty much everything would be T6 or higher except the screenable psykers. So if avoiding skew is one of our design goals, that detachment probably wouldn't accomplish that.

Hope none of that came off as aggressive. I do see the merit to these ideas and am enjoying the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Current method would be more impactful if they reduced the CP so it was more valuable, which might solve other issues, too.

The tricky thing about reducing CP is that so many of the game's decision points and iconic abilities/wargear are wrapped up in stratagems. I already find myself avoiding some flavorful-but-suboptimal strats as-is. Giving me even fewer CP to work with would mean I'd be even less likely to ever utilize those abilities. Of course, the current stratagem system has room for improvement and warrants a discussion all its own.

Wyldhunt wrote:

The tricky thing about reducing CP is that so many of the game's decision points and iconic abilities/wargear are wrapped up in stratagems. I already find myself avoiding some flavorful-but-suboptimal strats as-is. Giving me even fewer CP to work with would mean I'd be even less likely to ever utilize those abilities. Of course, the current stratagem system has room for improvement and warrants a discussion all its own.

This is the crux of the issue, they've shifted and diversified the problem.

By doing so they've lost control of how to work "balance" into army composition.

Wyldhunt wrote:
The thing is, you could still build skew lists even without special exceptions to the FOC like vehicle squadrons or force org slot manipulators. IG, for instance, could (iirc) take hell hounds and in their FA slots, russes in their HS slots, and pack their mandatory troop choices and HQs into chimeras. So even if they were stuck with the "one tank per slot" limitation like most armies, they could still build skew lists.

And once upon a time, when there were some weapons that couldn't hurt some targets, I'd be concerned about that. But since the start of 8th, everything can hurt everything, and Mortal Wound spam is a thing. I don't see the fear of "skew" being as big a deal as some make it out to be, certainly not in comparison to editions 3rd through 7th.

And besides, you can still skew the other way - all Infantry Guard was a fun thing to spring occasionally, making your opponent's TAC list suddenly find that its AT weapons were worthless.

Wyldhunt wrote:
What I'm getting at is that the FOC didn't do a great job of preventing skew, and that's partly because what units go in which slots seems to be based more on "feel" than on specific traits. If you can fit enough vehicles (or hordes or whatever kind of skew you're running) into the slots you have available, then it doesn't particularly matter what those slots are when it comes to solving the skew problem.

But again, that's a specific list issue, not an FOC issue.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Ex: "Only 40% of your army points may be spent on units with the 'Heavy Armor' battlefield role."

Then you get into the situation where taking upgrades might tip a unit beyond the given %, and that's daffy. No... percentages were tried back in 2nd, and before that in WHFB. They weren't great (I'm pretty sure we ignored them). The FOC makes way more sense if its enforced, and not basically ignored as it is now.

Wyldhunt wrote:
A.) Even in the example you gave, I have issues with that detachment. Sure, Iyanden is known for its wraith units, but they do have other stuff as well. It seems like I ought to be able to support my wraith units with a squad of banshees, for instance. Or a unit of war walkers now that there are plenty of war machines to go around among the surviving guardian ranks. I'm nit-picking here to give an idea of the kinds of issues you'd have to solve for every single special detachment you create.

You are correct: Iyanden do indeed have more than just Wraith units, but it was just a simple example of what I'm getting at. I don't see the issue you describe as insurmountable however. In fact, I see solving it as entirely worthwhile, as I think it would lead to a better game where the structure of your army matches the fluff of the faction you are playing.

Which brings us neatly to...

Wyldhunt wrote:
B.) You risk ending up with haves and have-nots. I play craftworld Iybraesil. It's a canon craftworld, but it's not one of the big five that GW bothered creating rules for in the codex. So there's a decent chance that, if GW were to switch to a system like the one you're proposing, that my particular army would be left unsupported. And what about a hypothetical player whose homebrewed craftworld's fluff is that they're really into swooping hawks the same way Iybraesil is really into banshees?

You are 100% correct here and I had not considered the "custom" Craftworld/Chapter/Legion/whatever side of "Your Dudes". I'll fully admit that I don't have an elegant solution to this right now, because as it stands this whole idea exists wholly in my head right now with next to nothing written down other than a few ideas (Spear-Tip for Black Legion, Sorcerous Cabal for 1KSons, Fifth Column for Alpha Legion... I mean, my Iron Warriors idea right now is listed as 'Siege Something' ).

So I haven't thought it all the way through yet, and you bringing up non-standard factions (canon or otherwise) is an exceptionally good point that I'll now have to factor in as I move forward.

Wyldhunt wrote:
C.) The Iyanden detachment you've pitched there would, itself, be kind of skew-y. Pretty much everything would be T6 or higher except the screenable psykers. So if avoiding skew is one of our design goals, that detachment probably wouldn't accomplish that.

Like I said, I don't think that's such a big deal now. T6 ain't what it used to be.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Hope none of that came off as aggressive. I do see the merit to these ideas and am enjoying the discussion.

Not at all.

It's nice to discuss rule ideas than just having someone shutting them down over and over again, as some here seem to always attempt.

Troops are completely useless now, unless they can do a couple of specific things: kill a lot of stuff or tank a lot of hits. Obj sec is mostly useful on very tanky and/or super fast units, not on regular infantries. Specialists overperform troops in every possible way.

Instead of "fixing" the FOC, change the troops' role. Or make it a mandatory heavy tax, like a mandatory 30% of the points budget that must be invested in troops.

With a classic FOC and change on the troops' value those who have trash troops would just bring the cheapest required amount of them, not very differently from now. And no amount of fun would be added, rather the opposite.

The vast majority of the current "oppressive" lists wouldn't break a classic FOC, and due to proliferation in datasheets in most of the largest factions lots of collections would become straight up unplayable with a strict old style FOC.

 Blackie wrote:


Instead of "fixing" the FOC, change the troops' role. Or make it a mandatory heavy tax, like a mandatory 30% of the points budget that must be invested in troops. .

WHFB did this and I got the impression people generally disliked it? I liked it so I dunno. But I think WHFBs way of setting up armies into Core, Special, Rare would probably work better for 40k at this point give the amount of models in a codex and how randomly GW assigns roles to things. IIRC correctly it was 25% Core minimum, 50% Special maximum and 25% maximum Rare. On top of that in 7th I think you had a unit restriction as well, like Warp Lightning Cannons were 0-1 per 1000pts IIRC? It's hazy, but in any case I think 40k could probably stand to do something like this.

Though knowning GW if they DID introduce a WHFB system they'd plonk it lazily on top of the FoC/Detachment system somehow.

Also, I am actually currently playing games of 4th as Armageddon Steel Legion (I have another tonight as we speak) which is literally FORCED, by their doctrine, to put everyone in Chimeras. It's the nightmare all-tank skew list that was exemplified...

... except it isn't. The rules for transports in 4th are incredibly punishing, meaning it is often better to deploy outside them unless you need the mobility to get somewhere. Forced disembark on a single pen, entanglement (forced pinning that not even Fearless gets you out of when you disembark if the vehicle is wrecked), units inside being hit by penetrating hits (super fun with blast weapons), units inside being outright annihilated when the vehicle is (hi Ordnance Penetrating Hits Table! Long time no see!)...

It isn't an unstoppable wall of iron, that is for sure.

Always hated the "auto-disembark on pen" rule.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Armoured Company is a good example, because there are basically three phases to playing that list:

I think what you mean is "were basically three phases"

Anyone want to go back in the thread and count the number of posts bitching about how weak vehicles are this edition? From what I've read in this thread, if someone showed up with a tank company, I'd expect a "Bully hurrah, good chap- you can't possibly win with that parking lot, but I admire your gumption!"

Or are the reports of weak vehicles exaggerated?

Furthermore, the CP cost for non-core detachments (ie not Patrol, Battalion, Brigade) is not a small consideration, especially in smaller games. There's a Crusade restriction that at 25 PL, a Patrol detachment is the only legal option. I wanted to play a vanguard for my Bloody Rose because of their story (their mission was entirely wiped out, so ALL of the survivors took a penitent oath- entire army is Repentia Superior + Preacher + 2 x repentia + 1 mortifier). The crew was like- Awesome- so you want to have no command points or obsec? You go!

PenitentJake wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Armoured Company is a good example, because there are basically three phases to playing that list:

I think what you mean is "were basically three phases"

Anyone want to go back in the thread and count the number of posts bitching about how weak vehicles are this edition? From what I've read in this thread, if someone showed up with a tank company, I'd expect a "Bully hurrah, good chap- you can't possibly win with that parking lot, but I admire your gumption!"

Or are the reports of weak vehicles exaggerated?

Furthermore, the CP cost for non-core detachments (ie not Patrol, Battalion, Brigade) is not a small consideration, especially in smaller games. There's a Crusade restriction that at 25 PL, a Patrol detachment is the only legal option. I wanted to play a vanguard for my Bloody Rose because of their story (their mission was entirely wiped out, so ALL of the survivors took a penitent oath- entire army is Repentia Superior + Preacher + 2 x repentia + 1 mortifier). The crew was like- Awesome- so you want to have no command points or obsec? You go!

The how strong or weak vehicles are really depends on the luck of your dice rolls. Random damage is a stupid mechanic. Random amounts of shots with random damage is a stupid, stupid mechanic.

Wyldhunt wrote:
The thing is, you could still build skew lists even without special exceptions to the FOC like vehicle squadrons or force org slot manipulators. IG, for instance, could (iirc) take hell hounds and in their FA slots, russes in their HS slots, and pack their mandatory troop choices and HQs into chimeras. So even if they were stuck with the "one tank per slot" limitation like most armies, they could still build skew lists.

Similarly, marines could run razorback spam backed up by HS tanks and Elite slot dreadnaughts. I think BA could even take the Baal Predator in the FA slot, but I'm not sure about that one. Craftworlders were less good at it, but they could field all tanks (or wraith lords) with DAVU (dire avenger vehicle upgrade) units hiding inside them and wraith guard as troops which in modern terms translates to having an entire army of T6, 7 and 8. Tau would probably be similar in modern terms now that they have big suits in several force org roles.

A mechanized army was nowhere near the same level of skew as taking 9+ Leman Russes, though. It was a lot of vehicles on the table, but when they were all AV10/AV11 that was something a TAC list could still deal with (particularly in editions with meltabombs and powerfists making short work of them). Transports were also generally expensive, and putting your whole force in Chimeras, Rhinos, or Devilfish meant a lot of points sunk into platforms that don't really do a lot of shooting.

The old FOV specifically allowed unlimited dedicated transports because mechanized lists were not seen as inherently game-breaking. If that was a legitimate problem for balancing, they could have limited the number of transports you could take.

When it was problematic, it was usually due to other factors than just the availability of transports- Rhino rush because of how disembarkation worked in 3rd, fish of fury because of how LOS worked in 4th, leafblower because Veterans were cheap and Valkyries were in the codex in 5th, etc.

PenitentJake wrote:
I think what you mean is "were basically three phases"

Anyone want to go back in the thread and count the number of posts bitching about how weak vehicles are this edition? From what I've read in this thread, if someone showed up with a tank company, I'd expect a "Bully hurrah, good chap- you can't possibly win with that parking lot, but I admire your gumption!"

Or are the reports of weak vehicles exaggerated?

We're explicitly talking about 3rd/4th but nice attempt at a gotcha I guess. Armored Company was an overpowered skew in that era but running a list with a bunch of Leman Russes now is pretty bad. It has, in fact, changed over time.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Instead of "fixing" the FOC, change the troops' role. Or make it a mandatory heavy tax, like a mandatory 30% of the points budget that must be invested in troops. .

WHFB did this and I got the impression people generally disliked it? I liked it so I dunno. But I think WHFBs way of setting up armies into Core, Special, Rare would probably work better for 40k at this point give the amount of models in a codex and how randomly GW assigns roles to things. IIRC correctly it was 25% Core minimum, 50% Special maximum and 25% maximum Rare. On top of that in 7th I think you had a unit restriction as well, like Warp Lightning Cannons were 0-1 per 1000pts IIRC? It's hazy, but in any case I think 40k could probably stand to do something like this.

Though knowning GW if they DID introduce a WHFB system they'd plonk it lazily on top of the FoC/Detachment system somehow.

WHFB had issues with leniency on what could become core/ was core, and access for certain other factions to HQ etc.

Throgg being a parde exemple that put trolls into core, albeit bad because trolls were bad, was not so rare for factions to have.
Another issue was Lords and heros being pretty expensive for some factions and rather not for others. Chaos warriors often had an issue to find the pts to field enough sorcerers in spell heavy times to counter and levy their own magic. Fielding a Lord for Chaos warriors at 2000 pts and a sorcerer was pretty limiting in Capability compared to other factions.
Also WHFB had a lot of magic lores tied to heros / access to basic lores which all more or less at some point were ridicoulus.


Atleast that was my perception of it back then and i partially blame this for the ever increasing seize of the armies played as "standard" which ultimately killed the game in conjunction with GW's Goldswords and Vampire knight pricing standard.

PenitentJake wrote:
I think what you mean is "were basically three phases"

Ok... and? Like, obviously this is past tense. Armoured Company doesn't exist anymore. This isn't news.

Do you get a quick out of replying to me with what basically amounts to "Nuh-uh!", 'cause you do it a lot?

So, guardians end up few, and kept relatively safe to hold objective only after the lines of fire are cleared and charges held back with other tougher units e.g. wrathbone animates. What about them makes them elites! In the background, we learn than many had walked warrior paths but might have stopped. These may end up leading units. But the elites are the practicing specialists.

This highlight the tension between fancy words and mechanical constraints. Here elite doesn't mean SF, but rather limited (otherwise wouldn't we complain about all the marines being in the troops not elites slot?).

Personally I think its a shame that for Eldar it isn't Aspects in the troops section and Guardians in a more restricted one. So a 40k company skirmish in the background they 100% rely on guardians for this. Go to the Epic battalion level and you should see equal number or far more Guardians than Aspects (and you do, it really is a great manifestation of GW background).

If you balance based off the fluff, there should be 10,000 Orks to fight a small detachment of Marines. Say, three Tac Squads, a Dev Squad, an Assault Squad, and their ancillary support.

Do you think the Ork player wants to get 10,000 models to fight less than 100?
Do you want to make the game balanced around that?

Thats really quite doable when you consider marines defeat them in detail, concentrating fighting power better than the enemy. In game terms that a series of 40k engagements, in fluff terms a day spent battling the unending horde, but they don't all arrive at that spot in the battlefield at once...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Armoured Company is a good example, because there are basically three phases to playing that list:

1. "OMG! I have an entire army of tanks!"
2. "Wow. My opponent really can't do much to me."
3. "None of my opponents can really do much to me. This isn't fun anymore..."

I've played Armoured Companies a few times and yeah, the novelty of all tanks, all the time wears off pretty quickly, especially during the third turn of the second game, where you've systematically annihilated all the things that can damage your tanks and your opponent is left floundering as they try to get rear AV10 shots on Russes that are in my DZ and other stuff like that.

But, that's a problem with the AC list, not a problem with the FOC.

If 40k wanted to get sophisticated (and I have seen some tournies do that), you would have a core XXXX 75% of points then 2-3 optional modules of XXX 25% points, which you can switch around when shown the enemies core.

Really though the threat of an all armour force in the meta should just ensure the inclusion of anti tank guns in your infantry to deal with them (historically the best deterrent) in case you run up against them.

I would just remove the FOC completely.

The game already requires you to have a warlord, so i guess the requirements would be 1 Character.
The game rewards you for bringing obsec (typically troops) so you would bring some anyway.

The FoC has never felt like something good from a pure game perspective. Why would White scars be penalized (less CP) by bringing a fluffy all bikers list? Why add rules to guard to allow them to bring extra HS?

Removing it gives more freedom when listbuilding. And if you really want to match the fluff, you're free to do so if you want.

White Scars are a Codex Chapter. Why is bringing all bikes "fluffy" for them?

Rihgu wrote:
Alternatively, the citizen-soldiers of a dying race shouldn't be on the front lines except in the most dire of situations so Guardians should be an Elites choice. And sure, let's cost them at 20 points to show how valuable Aeldari lives are.

Orks have among the best Tellyporta tech in the galaxy, so they should pay LESS for high tech high mobility. They also love bikes a lot, and buggies, and trukks, so those should all be cheap to show how plentiful they are in ork armies. There's a Ciaphas Cain novel where the orks built 13 gargants in a relatively short amount of time, and besides they show up in almost every battle with orks so let's cost them discount, too.

Nah, I don't think I like fluff costing armies very much. Their points cost, a gameplay mechanic, should probably reflect their gameplay efficacy.

Agreed, pricing units "according to fluff" doesn't work. Especially when the people doing the pricing don't know the fluff. See: CSM and Martial Legacy.