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.
Jidmah wrote: How about addressing the proof that the FOC failed to prevent spam in any edition it existed?
I haven't seen any proof presented in this thread that FOCs never did anything to curb spam in prior editions. I don't think anyone would argue that FOCs fully prevented spam, only that they made it harder.
Even if that were the case that FOCs were worthless in prior editions, it only needs to be shown that it would disallow army builds that have been overpowered in modern tournaments to demonstrate that the FOC could have value in ninth.
Lots of mechanics can offer benefits without being silver bullet solutions. Points costs have consistently failed to prevent overpowered lists in any edition, but I wouldn't call that 'proof' that points are a bad mechanic and we should all switch to PL.
Banning ranged units would nerf some OP units, it would not make the game better.
Jidmah wrote: How about addressing the proof that the FOC failed to prevent spam in any edition it existed?
There is a difference in certain units being spammed and any unit you want. Old FoC still allowed Carnifex's, certain tanks, etc.. to be spammed for sure, but not 5 Dreads in any SM army list. Not 4 DEHQ's with 6 Talos, 3 Cronos, 2 Ravagers. Not 30 VGV's with Dreads either with 5 characters. Not 4 Flyers with Mek guns and 9 Buggies.
It did heavily limit the spam compare all of 8th and 9th.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/27 22:33:32
Jidmah wrote: How about addressing the proof that the FOC failed to prevent spam in any edition it existed?
I haven't seen any proof presented in this thread that FOCs never did anything to curb spam in prior editions. I don't think anyone would argue that FOCs fully prevented spam, only that they made it harder.
Even if that were the case that FOCs were worthless in prior editions, it only needs to be shown that it would disallow army builds that have been overpowered in modern tournaments to demonstrate that the FOC could have value in ninth.
Lots of mechanics can offer benefits without being silver bullet solutions. Points costs have consistently failed to prevent overpowered lists in any edition, but I wouldn't call that 'proof' that points are a bad mechanic and we should all switch to PL.
Banning ranged units would nerf some OP units, it would not make the game better.
I guess it's a good thing the FOC mechanic was nothing like that ridiculous strawman you just concocted, then? Talk about a false equivalency.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/28 00:40:47
catbarf wrote: I haven't seen any proof presented in this thread that FOCs never did anything to curb spam in prior editions. I don't think anyone would argue that FOCs fully prevented spam, only that they made it harder.
Australian 40K scene used to have this comp system (universally mocked pretty much everywhere else) that punished you for spamming the 'wrong' units (which was the problem, it was often picked by people who had no idea how army plays/why unit X is good/soft on their own army/on looks basis so was laughably easy to dodge and 90% of the time really ineffective). Unless you postulate they were idiots clinging to pointless system for 10+ years spam had to be issue serious enough back then to warrant it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: A more apt comparison would be the Space Marine Gladiator, which rather than just being one unit, is three, so you can bring 9. It's stupid, and shouldn't be, but GW wants to sell more kits, and limiting you to 3 would go against that.
Nice conspiracy theory, but if they wanted to sell more of them, they would make them OP like eldar/de units, not overpriced junk they are. See also reivers (and pretty much half of the rest of primaris range). Hell, funnily enough, when they finally made a primaris unit good by accident (bladeguard and melta dudes) they were big box only (so impossible to buy directly from GW, ebay only) and the nerf came before separate box was released
Also, if that was their goal, why isn't Redemptor two sheets? It's much better vehicle, you'd think GW would want to encourage sales of it, but somehow it's much more restricted, go figure...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Then they should have limited AdMech and Ork flyers, not all flyers.
They did, in 8th edition. With Tau commander, unit that according to fluff was beyond dumb to spam (1 per planet, if not sector). Remember years of crying broken toy was capped and GW bashing it caused, a lot of it here? Gee, I wonder why they wanted to avoid repeat of that one
Irbis wrote: Australian 40K scene used to have this comp system (universally mocked pretty much everywhere else) that punished you for spamming the 'wrong' units (which was the problem, it was often picked by people who had no idea how army plays/why unit X is good/soft on their own army/on looks basis so was laughably easy to dodge and 90% of the time really ineffective). Unless you postulate they were idiots clinging to pointless system for 10+ years spam had to be issue serious enough back then to warrant it.
Oh, another 'if it wasn't perfect it must have been useless' post. Always good to have more of those.
I mean, seriously, if you apply this logic to any other balance mechanic it's ridiculous. ITC scoring didn't stop certain lists from overperforming, but we're still using secondaries in 9th. Some armies have overperformed despite the existence of points as a balancing factor since the start of 40K, but here we are still using points because it's better than the alternative. 'Imperfect' is not synonymous with 'worthless'.
I have never heard anyone say the FOC was perfect and completely prevented spam and ensured balanced armies. Never. GTFO with that straw man. The argument is that the constraints it imposed were better at curbing abuse than the current system, which I'm inclined to agree with given that it basically was the current system with RO3 extended to all units within a slot, not just of one specific datasheet. It addressed one very specific form of imbalance, which was force org skew.
Was it perfect? No. Nobody's said that. I don't even know if I'd want it back as it was; there are more elegant ways to shape army composition. But this idea that it must have been an ineffective mechanic if it didn't 100% unequivocally forever solve balance in 40K is really dumb.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/28 06:25:58
"it only needs to be shown that it would disallow army builds that have been overpowered in modern tournaments to demonstrate that the FOC could have value in ninth."
"The argument is that the constraints it imposed were better at curbing abuse than the current system..."
"the change only needs to be shown to disallow army builds that have been overpowered in modern tournaments to demonstrate the change could have value in ninth."
I chose a change that fulfils your ridiculously low standard to highlight how low it is. Your have to show that your rules change makes the game so much better that it is worth having everyone change the way they build lists. Banning allies and taking 4+ Heavy Support choices is a downside for anyone who wants to bring them. Matched play is not just for tournaments, it's for people who want moderately balanced easily organized pick-up games as well.
It's not really much of a difference whether I bring 3 Annihilation Barges + 3 Doomsday Arks or 3 Triarch Stalkers + 3 Doomsday Arks, you are just putting an arbitrary limitation on people and not really touching most OP lists.
RO3 already prevents spamming a single datasheet. Big Game Hunter etc. already curbs skew. Bringing back the FOC would have no positive effect on the game as most competitive armies need little to nothing to fit, while a lot of fun or thematic lists that are already uncompetitive become impossible to play.
Jidmah wrote: How about addressing the proof that the FOC failed to prevent spam in any edition it existed?
There is a difference in certain units being spammed and any unit you want. Old FoC still allowed Carnifex's, certain tanks, etc.. to be spammed for sure, but not 5 Dreads in any SM army list. Not 4 DEHQ's with 6 Talos, 3 Cronos, 2 Ravagers. Not 30 VGV's with Dreads either with 5 characters. Not 4 Flyers with Mek guns and 9 Buggies.
It did heavily limit the spam compare all of 8th and 9th.
Why should Tyranids spam Carnifexes but Orks be unable to spam buggies? Ironclad Dreadnoughts (and some FW Dreadnoughts) were Heavy Support, so people could take 6 Dreadnoughts. This was arbitrary and has now been changed, I didn't even know and how would I know? There is no set rule for how battlefield roles are assigned.
Jidmah wrote: How about addressing the proof that the FOC failed to prevent spam in any edition it existed?
There is a difference in certain units being spammed and any unit you want. Old FoC still allowed Carnifex's, certain tanks, etc.. to be spammed for sure, but not 5 Dreads in any SM army list. Not 4 DEHQ's with 6 Talos, 3 Cronos, 2 Ravagers. Not 30 VGV's with Dreads either with 5 characters. Not 4 Flyers with Mek guns and 9 Buggies.
It did heavily limit the spam compare all of 8th and 9th.
9 buggies were legal since 3rd, don't know about older editions. Although pre-8th edition buggies were a completely different and much weaker unit. Basically single shot vehicles with no CC ability and paper things.
The point of the FOC being bad, obsolete, unfair and clunky is that it REMOVES choices. If I have 5-6 units from the same role but I'm limited to 3 then I'd never field the sub optimal ones but I'd still max out points from specialists roles, avoiding to invest in trash troops. Which one of those list's archetypes is the most oppressive one?
Easy answer, case B is the closest thing to something that breakes the game and yet it 100% respects the old FOC. Case A is still an example of an optimized list but unlike Case B is also much more oriented to hobbysts rather than meta chasers.
The new detachment system allows for much more variety. Drukhari are a bad example because they don't have variety. With just 3 proper FA (+ beasts) and 3 HS in total, they'd spam the same things anyway, FOC or not. The old FOC limited the spam in a very unfair way, as even you pointed out before, it didn't prevent some armies to spam units like tanks or monsters while others couldn't. Units for some armies also cost a lot of points, so they wouldn't get more than 3 units for each role anyway.
If spamming talos or dreads becomes a problem, just cap those specific units in competitive gaming, like GW already did with flyers and buggies.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/28 08:48:43
vict0988 wrote: I chose a change that fulfils your ridiculously low standard to highlight how low it is.
I never even came close to suggesting that any mechanic that meets that low bar is a good one and should be implemented. That's beyond straw man, that's bad reading comprehension.
'Could have value (in response to a post explicitly saying it did not)' does not mean 'is a good change that should be put in the game immediately with no further thought'. I don't feel like I should have to explicitly say that, but here we are.
vict0988 wrote: It's not really much of a difference whether I bring 3 Annihilation Barges + 3 Doomsday Arks or 3 Triarch Stalkers + 3 Doomsday Arks, you are just putting an arbitrary limitation on people and not really touching most OP lists.
It's not really much of a difference whether I bring 9 Carnifexes + 9 Thornbacks or 18 Carnifexes, but 9th Ed says the first is totally fine and the second is unfair skew. Still seems pretty arbitrary to me. And I've definitely seen OP lists that wouldn't fit the old FOC.
What you're really pointing out is the limitation of slot assignment in the old FOC. There are other ways to constrain listbuilding more strongly than the current approach without running into that particular issue. But every listbuilding constraint is fundamentally 'arbitrary'. RO3 is arbitrary. Battalions giving you your CP back but Spearheads not is arbitrary. Having to eat CP in order to build a Spearhead of underperforming Guard tanks and not being allowed to take more than three units of them definitely sucks for someone who just wants to play a fun and thematic list. Want to play a Veteran-based Guard army? Can't, RO3 says no.
It's wrong to talk like the FOC was unique in imposing arbitrary constraints on listbuilding that penalized or banned thematic lists while implying the current system does not. It's a matter of degrees, and there has to be a trade-off between maximum listbuilding flexibility and balance in random pick-up games.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/12/28 17:40:04
Catbarf, don't you see that the FOC also causes a lot of harm to the game? It's not all upside.
What's the point of harming the game if even people supporting the FOC say that its gain is questionable?
Are there any problems with the current system that the FOC would solve? The answer is no. So what's the point?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/28 21:11:40
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Yeah, the thread can indeed be summarized as "people ignoring overwhelming proof that the FOC was a failure, while failing to provide any proof themselves".
And no, catbarf did not address that argument at all. He merely denied it without proof.
You are also wrong on the second one, but you haven't provided proof of 9th edition codices systematically maxing out "the best" units, so there is that.
Arguments made without proof can be denied without proof.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/28 22:50:08
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Ignoring the silliness with buggies, it would seem to me that "you can have 3 heavy support units the end" is rather more limiting than "you can only have 3 of the same unit".
By degree the FOC obviously did limit spam in the old days - because (for example) you couldn't turn up with say 4 (or 10) Wraithlords (ignoring whether or not you'd ever want to). But equally, if you had 3 Wraithlords, you couldn't bring any war walkers, or dark reapers, or fire prisms or falcons. Which looking back seems kind of lame.
It was sort of okay in a world of White Dwarf, quasi-highlander style collections (which were perhaps collected that way in part to fit with the FOC limitations), but that's not really how people play these days. And not I suspect how most people want to play or collect.
For the OP - it just comes down to a clash of "what should an army look like". I tend to think Eldar players should be able to run all Aspect Armies if they want to - and that's sort of Biel Tan's whole schtick. But it really isn't how I see all Eldar Fluff and so would be really opposed to applying to all Craftworlds.
Arguably this goes back to how "Chapter Tactics" should be about facilitating different and deeper ways of playing - as it sort of was 20ish years ago. So you like Aspects? Go Biel Tan. You like Jet Bikes? Go Saim-Hann etc. But that seems to have been essentially abandoned for "here's a grab bag of rules, some of which are more overpowered than the others, chuck whatever you want with to get the most out of it."
Jidmah wrote: How about addressing the proof that the FOC failed to prevent spam in any edition it existed?
There is a difference in certain units being spammed and any unit you want. Old FoC still allowed Carnifex's, certain tanks, etc.. to be spammed for sure, but not 5 Dreads in any SM army list.
A master of the forge allowed you to bring 6 dreads in a single FOC. BA could even go up to 9 depending on how many death company models they brought.
Not 4 DEHQ's with 6 Talos, 3 Cronos, 2 Ravagers.
They also weren't allowed to bring leaders for a their 3 subfactions. On the flip side, there is no reason why 6 talos, 3 cronos and 2 ravagers should be disallowed when 6 LRBT, 3 hellhounds, 3 basilisks and 2 vendettas or 3 baal predators, 3 furioso dreadnaughts, 3 regular dreadnaughts and pair of landraiders are a legal army?
Not 30 VGV's with Dreads either with 5 characters.
Maenus Calgar allowed you to run 3 honor guard squads without taking up HQ slots, and you could which were functional identical to VGV. Pedro Cantor allowed you to field and army of 30 sternguard veterans as troops.
Not 4 Flyers with Mek guns and 9 Buggies.
Uhm, outside of fliers already being limited to 2 now, what exactly is the FOC going to do about that? Mek guns are heavy support, buggies come in squadrons of 3 and are fast attack. Just another example of the FOC failing at its most basic function. Oh, fun fact - one of the most efficient necron army that ever fit inside a FOC was actually running up to 12 fliers.
It did heavily limit the spam compare all of 8th and 9th.
Does either of those lists look like heavily limited spam to you?
Also don't mash 8th and 9th together, they differ as much in list building as 5th and 7th did.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/28 23:46:01
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Jidmah wrote: How about addressing the proof that the FOC failed to prevent spam in any edition it existed?
There is a difference in certain units being spammed and any unit you want. Old FoC still allowed Carnifex's, certain tanks, etc.. to be spammed for sure, but not 5 Dreads in any SM army list.
A master of the forge allowed you to bring 6 dreads in a single FOC.
However, the overall number of non-transports you could bring was 0, because the dreadnoughts took up those slots. Nowadays? You could have an army of 6 dreadnoughts, 3 Gladiators, and 3 Warsuits if you wanted.
They also weren't allowed to bring leaders for a their 3 subfactions.
On the flip side, there is no reason why 6 talos, 3 cronos and 2 ravagers should be disallowed when 6 LRBT, 3 hellhounds, 3 basilisks and 2 vendettas or 3 baal predators, 3 furioso dreadnaughts, 3 regular dreadnaughts and pair of landraiders are a legal army?
Comparing what is possible in 2k to what is possible in 3k or bigger wouldn't work in earlier editions either because of duplicating FOC.
Maenus Calgar allowed you to run 3 honor guard squads without taking up HQ slots, and you could which were functional identical to VGV.
Yep, and severely constrained your army in the process (UM only, had to be the warlord). Not like today where basically anyone can do it.
Pedro Cantor allowed you to field and army of 30 sternguard veterans as troops.
He made them scoring, not Troops. Still had to bring 2 Tac squads or 2 scouts.
Does either of those lists look like heavily limited spam to you?
Yes? The only one that is questionable is 6 preds. They both "spam" troops, which is fine (troops are the core of an army). 3 devastator squads is standard for an SM line company.
Also don't mash 8th and 9th together, they differ as much in list building as 5th and 7th did.
Then why are you mashing "all FOC" together?
Your examples only work in 5th or later, for example.
Master of the Forge did not exist before 5th edition.
Characters (Calgar) required asking before they could be brought before 5th edition.
Baal Predators were HS in 5th edition (iirc).
@Jidmah, could you remind me what you're actually arguing *for*?
I understand that you think the old FoC was largely or wholly useless but there have been so many posts just debating that point that I've lost track as to what you would actually prefer instead.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Unit1126PLL wrote: However, the overall number of non-transports you could bring was 0, because the dreadnoughts took up those slots.
Those dread spam lists aren't bringing any other vehicles, which means the FOC wouldn't be fixing the problem.
There is no real argument in favor of the FOC besides it making competitive list building more trivial, though IMO that is not a good thing.
Nowadays? You could have an army of 6 dreadnoughts, 3 Gladiators, and 3 Warsuits if you wanted.
How is the option of being able to bring gladiators and warsuits a problem? Especially since no one seems to be doing it?
It's also whataboutism what you are doing here, his argument in favor of the FOC has been debunked, and you aren't providing a new one.
Comparing what is possible in 2k to what is possible in 3k or bigger wouldn't work in earlier editions either because of duplicating FOC.
Eh, remembered the points for LRBT wrong. Replace the basilisks with a manticore then then, and you still end up with FOC-approved heavy armor spam at 2k. Which kind of was one of the tournament dominating builds at that time.
The BA example fits into 2k points perfectly. So feel free to address why IG got a free pass for spamming any amounts of armor or infantry, while DE were not allowed to bring three melee monsters and two gunboats.
Yep, and severely constrained your army in the process (UM only, had to be the warlord). Not like today where basically anyone can do it.
There wasn't really a downside to making him warlord in 5th though. I also went to dig for this fabled list and where it was causing problems... and it turns out to be a UM list with Tigurius and Gulliman! The irony.
However, it was an 8th edition list and the player brought plenty of troops to gain extra CP. Outside of having an extra elite slot for an apothecary and an extra HQ, it would even have fit into a FOC.
Everything else is pretty much click-baity articles from the usualy suspects like SpikeyBits or BLOS which tell you that even you can easily win with veteran vanguards, click the article to find out how. Any serious lists have no more than one or two units.
Another case where there isn't actually a problem, that a FOC also wouldn't solve anyways.
Pedro Cantor allowed you to field and army of 30 sternguard veterans as troops.
He made them scoring, not Troops. Still had to bring 2 Tac squads or 2 scouts.
True, I actually remember my regular CF opponent always having a pair of landspeeder storms on the board. Probably confused him with Belial.
Yes? The only one that is questionable is 6 preds. They both "spam" troops, which is fine (troops are the core of an army).
But isn't that backwards? In 5th having 6 red units of assault marines with razorbacks is fine, but having 6 units of assault marines with razorbacks in 9th is spam that needs to be limited? Was the 8th edition Gulliman razorback parking lot not spam because razorbacks are dedicated transports? Was the 90 intercessors lists not spam because the were troops?
IMO it doesn't stop being spam just because of a battle role shift.
3 devastator squads is standard for an SM line company.
Do you have any reasoning why this kind of army is fine, while current armies need to be limited by a FOC? I mean, having 18 buggies and four planes is standard for mob of speed freeks, isn't it?
How about the 45 lootas lists in 5th? Also not spam?
If fielding 3 identical identical units with maxed out identical weapons isn't spam, I don't know what is. If that isn't spam then there would be no spam at all in the game, we do have the Ro3 after all.
Which would be quite paradoxal, because then there would be no need to implement the FOC, as there is nothing for it to fix
Also don't mash 8th and 9th together, they differ as much in list building as 5th and 7th did.
Then why are you mashing "all FOC" together?
Apples to oranges. While both 8th and 9th have detachments, there is a huge and important difference:
In 8th detachments gave you rewards in forms of CP, and most armies could directly translate CP into damage. Which means having more detachments was a no-brainer, troops were happily taken as tax to gain more CP and there was zero downside to mixing in units from an allied army. More detachments = more damage, slots were an afterthought.
In 9th you get one free detachment if it has mandatory troops, and everything else requires you to spend non-trivial amounts of CP. You aren't getting extra slots for free anymore, and extra detachments are a trade-off, as is skipping troops. If your troops and stratagems are terrible, players are more likely to take that trade-off, but that is mostly an issue of unit balance, not of slot availability. Most armies with decent troops like drukhari, necrons, space marines or death guard are taking them, and not just as minimum tax.
Comparing 8th to 9th is like comparing 5th edition's FOC to 7th's decurions.
Your examples only work in 5th or later, for example.
Master of the Forge did not exist before 5th edition.
Characters (Calgar) required asking before they could be brought before 5th edition.
You are missing the point. The burden of proof is on the people claiming that the FOC would solve spam or at least improve problems of the present. A single counter-example is sufficient to debunk an argument.
FOC prevented dread spam - no it didn't.
FOC prevented veteran spam - no, it didn't.
FOC prevented people skipping troops - no, it didn't.
Also 5th was the final iteration of the FOC, so it should be the "best" one, right? GW clearly thought that those loopholes to override the FOC's limitations were necessary to preserve army flavor.
In any case, I'm fairly sure that I can find spammy lists for 4th edition as well - eldar grav tanks and tripple BT landraiders come to mind.
Baal Predators were HS in 5th edition (iirc).
Baal predators were fast attack, one of the reasons by BA were seen as Space Marines +1. The book essentially gave them permission to spam the heck out of everything, as long as you told your opponent that your army was actually painted red.
I'd also like to point out that I put some effort into addressing all your points, so if you feel like I skipped over one of your arguments, say so.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Jidmah wrote:Catbarf, don't you see that the FOC also causes a lot of harm to the game? It's not all upside.
When did I ever say it was 'all upside'? I outright said I don't think I'd want it to come back as it was.
What is it about this topic that draws out all the straw men? Christ alive, every single reply to my posts is just stuffing words in my mouth.
Jidmah wrote:And no, catbarf did not address that argument at all. He merely denied it without proof.
Jidmah wrote:Arguments made without proof can be denied without proof.
I mean, I haven't seen any proof that the FOC did nothing to address spam, so by that metric no proof is needed to refute it.
I see evidence that spam still existed under the FOC. But that doesn't mean that the FOC was wholly ineffective at combating spam- for the same reason that imbalance existing in spite of points is not evidence that points are worthless at preventing imbalance and should be thrown out entirely.
You're basically holding up the fact that the FOC wasn't perfect as evidence that it was ineffective, and that doesn't follow. You'd need to demonstrate that the game sans FOC would be no more breakable than one with it, and that doesn't seem like a provable proposition. On the contrary, I think that it stands to reason that a game with no FOC restrictions would be easier to break than one with them.
The real question should be whether the side effects of heavy constraints on listbuilding are worth the improvement to balance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/29 02:47:35
vipoid wrote: @Jidmah, could you remind me what you're actually arguing *for*?
I understand that you think the old FoC was largely or wholly useless but there have been so many posts just debating that point that I've lost track as to what you would actually prefer instead.
Sure. I think the current system is doing pretty well in regards to how armies are built and should be tweaked rather than tossed out with the bathwater.
Which means:
- The detachment containing your warlord is free, if it is a patrol, battalion or brigade.
- Every other detachment costs non-trivial amounts of CP.
- "Special" detachments attached to extra limitations can also be free to enable flavorful armies like ravenwing, deathwing, the speed mob or even rogue traders. Things like the aspect host could also be solved through this.
- Heavily limited armies of reknown for super-specialized forces like the speed mob, Belakor's disciples or Typhus' plague zombie horde. This would be a good solution for phantom-focused armies.
- Detachment rules rewarding pure armies to make taking allies a trade-off instead of a no-brainer.
- Free passes for flavorful allies like assassins, inquisitors or knights of the cog. This might also be the solution for summoning daemons or corsairs.
- Rewards for less detachments are roughly equal to rewards for having more detachments for most armies.
- Good internal balance in codices actually reduces spam and makes people bring multiple different units to have more options on the tabletop.
- Fliers rule is fine. Every time any army had good fliers, they have ruined the game. Limiting them allows them to be good without breaking the game - twice as important with eldar getting their new codex soon.
- Secondary Objectives and Agendas punish skew lists, making people actively seek to diversify their defensive profiles.
- Limiting the use of cheap troops like pox walkers, cultists, scouts and gretchin while giving better tools to signature troops is a good thing. Armies feel more "real" because of that.
- Many (sub-)faction benefits are tied to your warlord's faction.
What's not so hot currently:
- LoW that aren't supreme commanders suck to play. Just kill the SHA and add a LoW slots to battalions and two to brigades. Or at least remove the "can't have detachment rules" part.
- Too many layers of rules make those detachment rules feel like a burden instead of a blessing. It's a good thing that they exist, but complexity needs to go down.
- Having a different sub-factions on every detachment is too easy for some armies.
- There aren't enough incentives to take battalions. Two patrols or a patrol and an outrider/vanguard/spearhead are superior to one battalion in many cases.
- There is no incentive to ever run a brigade.
- Squadrons should go away for everything that has more than 6 wounds. These just cause skew lists, and it would also fix the buggy issue.
- One Commander/Chaos Lord/Warboss/Hive Guard per detachment feels bad. On the one hand, limiting them is a good for balance and flavorful, on the other, you have like ten warboss datasheets in the ork codex and can only run one, while the Legion of He-Who-Hates-Psykers is forced to run a psyker in battalions because all their other HQ choices are lords of chaos.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Jidmah wrote: - Fliers rule is fine. Every time any army had good fliers, they have ruined the game. Limiting them allows them to be good without breaking the game - twice as important with eldar getting their new codex soon.
Meanwhile my fluffy airmobile Scions army is going on indefinite hiatus, as it is no longer Matched Play legal, until either I rework it to be land-based (and, I dunno, sell my Valkyries on eBay or something) or GW revises the flier restriction.
Jidmah wrote: - Squadrons should go away for everything that has more than 6 wounds. These just cause skew lists, and it would also fix the buggy issue.
Poof, there go the armored companies too.
I'm not trying to cherry-pick your points, but these are a microcosm of why I am thoroughly unconvinced that 8th/9th Ed's system is really much different in practice from the old FOC. It seems to me more like it promises greater freedom (and was genuinely more open-ended to start with), but has had all these crude and artificial limitations instated to prevent the inevitable abuse. Want to make an army of Veterans, since the Vanguard detachment allows you to take as many Elites choices as you want? Nope, people spammed non-Troops units, so there's Rule of 3. Airmobile Scions? Nope, people spammed fliers, now only 1 per 1K points. Four or five 5-man units of Pathfinders? No, once again, Ro3 forces you to max out three units rather than take more, smaller ones. Elite Crisis Suit army led by a cadre of skilled officers? Commanders are one-per-detachment, sucks to suck (And I will be fair and acknowledge that you listed this as a negative).
If we want to talk about artificial restrictions on listbuilding, those are all pretty damn artificial. And then depending on how many points you have to work with, you may wind up with issues filling slots or fitting within your chosen detachments anyways. The only significant thing you can do under the current system that you couldn't under the old FOC is take multiple different units from the same slot. Which is cool, but I've seen more lists use this for exploitative purposes than for fluffy themes.
Retaining the slots of the old FOC feels like an atavism rather than a mechanic that adds any real depth. At this point I'd rather see WHFB's Core/Special/Rare breakdown to more abstractly (and directly) represent rarity and constrain army composition; at the very least it'd be easier to have characters or subfactions switch around what counts as Core and thus facilitate alternative army composition. Let GW- at least for Matched Play*- curate which units are allowed to make up the mainstay of your army.
* And on this note, I think this would be a much easier discussion if Matched Play were actually treated as a tighter tournament ruleset rather than the de facto way to play. Trying to make a ruleset that provides good balance at the top tables and fun options for Garagehammer is a Sisyphean proposition. I'd be fine with tighter restrictions for tournament play and just acknowledging that my Scions list is not GW Tournament Approved and leaving it at that, but having it be disallowed by the rules that most pick-up players are using at my local shop is frustrating.
I think it is pretty clear that Mortarion got over his hatred of psykers when he himself became one. I still dislike the max 1 Commander/Detachment rules because it signifies OP units that are worth bringing as beasticks and get free support rules as well. Buggies are still unbalanced, the issue has just been swept under the rug.
"You're basically holding up the fact that the FOC wasn't perfect as evidence that it was ineffective, and that doesn't follow. You'd need to demonstrate that the game sans FOC would be no more breakable than one with it, and that doesn't seem like a provable proposition."
The current system works, you want to change the system, the burden of proof is on you to prove the change would be positive. Not just positive in the sense that it removes one OP list from the equation, positive in the way that it is worth implementing despite forcing everyone who plays matched play to never spam Elites/FA/HS.
Showing the FOC's imperfections shows that it is not worth bringing back. I played Necrons in 5th/6th, there were no Heavy Support choices I wanted to bring other than Annihilation Barges, the rest of my good units were Troops, Dedicated Transports or took up no force org slots (Stormteks). The only thing the FOC did was act as a RO3 for Annihilation Barges and limited me to 6 Troops, which was more than enough anyway.
Warhammer World GT
1st place: 1 Warboss in Mega Armour, 1 Big Mek in Mega Armour, 3 Kill Rigs, 2 Squighog Boys, 1 Meganobs.
Spamming the same datasheet is hardly an issue in 9th, people don't even strain against the RO3, the 4th place was almost a highlander list. The harlequin 2nd place spammed dedicated transports and troops, maybe there needs to be a RO6 for Troops/Dedicated Transports so people don't go too overboard with one of these datasheets.
Some datasheets that are super similar need to fall under the same datasheet, the Gladiators are too similar to have different datasheets I agree, but they are overcosted at the moment so nobody brings them in high numbers anyway.
All those who defend the old FOC are players that didn't have to make hard choices in listbuilding in older editions and they wouldn't make them either in the current edition assuming the old style FOC were coming back.
They don't see the issues of the FOC because their armies were never truly affected by the the FOC's limitations.
Note that the same posters aren't against spam, in fact they hate what GW did to flyers and ork buggies. They'd all be in favor of things like 9 leman russes + 2-3 HQ leman russes just because the FOC would be respected.
Basically they're players that want and like to spam stuff but for some reason they don't like how other armies can make good use of several units from the same army roles, even if they don't spam anything.
Blackie wrote: All those who defend the old FOC are players that didn't have to make hard choices in listbuilding in older editions and they wouldn't make them either in the current edition assuming the old style FOC were coming back.
I'm not even sure what this means. With the current FOC structure there are no 'hard choices', as you can just add more slots.
The old FOC was all about hard choices, as it imposed actual limitations on what you could take, something that, outside of a few exceptions, simply don't exist in current 40k. Back then you couldn't just take another FOC with lots and lots of Heavy Support choices because you'd reached your limit of 3 already. You can do that now though. So much for 'hard choices'.
Blackie wrote: They don't see the issues of the FOC because their armies were never truly affected by the the FOC's limitations.
Presumptuous nonsense.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/12/29 08:47:21
The old FOC was all about hard choices, as it imposed actual limitations on what you could take, something that, outside of a few exceptions, simply don't exist in current 40k. Back then you couldn't just take another FOC with lots and lots of Heavy Support choices because you'd reached your limit of 3 already. You can do that now though. So much for 'hard choices'.
No it wasn't. It imposed actual limitations on SOME armies. Others couldn't care less as they had ways to counter those limitations: squadrons, high points costs, good units spread across all army roles, etc... even actual special rules that allowed a faction to flat out break the FOC.
And those limitations did nothing else than forcing players to spam the best units for each slot. I've already provided multiple examples why the FOC took choices away. If you really want to make choices bring 0-1 or 0-2 limitations on specific units. If I can bring one Kill Rig I have to think of a list that provides all the required synergies, if I can bring 3 I'm not making any actual choice, let alone hard ones. I'm maxing them out as long as they are the best unit in that army role.
It's not a choice when I can bring 3 OP models and nothing else since I'm limited to 3 slots in that army role. If I could take 4 or 5 maybe I could choose some of the sub optimal units instead. Take Mek gunz, they're ok as solo units AS LONG AS they don't eat precious HS slots. Being cheap means that I may be forced to bring trash units if I add one or two of those to my list, like more troops to complete the army. So if I can bring multiple HS I'd definitely take mek gunz, if i can't... nope, I'd just spam the 3 best HS I can field. Same for any other different role. 5 man squads of stormboyz? Good, as long as bringing them doesn't prevent me from bringing the most performing unit(s) for that army role and it doens't force me to add trash troops. 2x5 Stormboyz in an outrider detachment combined with 4-5 shooty FA units? Why not? They're a legit option. With only 3 FA available? Not a chance, I'm maxing out the best options I have without making any choice.
It's the current detachment system that actually let players make choices. If you want to make even more choices cap the specific units.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/29 09:19:06
Jidmah wrote: - Fliers rule is fine. Every time any army had good fliers, they have ruined the game. Limiting them allows them to be good without breaking the game - twice as important with eldar getting their new codex soon.
Meanwhile my fluffy airmobile Scions army is going on indefinite hiatus, as it is no longer Matched Play legal, until either I rework it to be land-based (and, I dunno, sell my Valkyries on eBay or something) or GW revises the flier restriction.
I understand that this is a problem, but ever since fliers have become a regular part of the game, them ignoring large parts of the game has been an issue. This is an issue with aircraft rules, not the list building mechanics - with how planes have work your air cavalry will doomed to always be a terrible army, because once valks enter "good" territory, there will be a guard player spamming *reads notes* up to 18 of them on top of a bunch of LoS ignoring artillery to create the exact same type of problem as we had with the ork freebootas list.
As I pointed out, highly specialized forces should be addressed through heavily limited armies of reknown, your army (as well as the very similar elysian drop troops) seem like perfect candidates for that.
Jidmah wrote: - Squadrons should go away for everything that has more than 6 wounds. These just cause skew lists, and it would also fix the buggy issue.
Poof, there go the armored companies too.
Same as above. Armored companies can be a specialist detachment akin to deathwing, allowing you to bring more than the basic number of LRBT. Because honestly, I can't of a single other tank that should be able to break the Ro3, and even if there are some that I missed, how many datasheets are we talking about, two? Three?
What this is supposed to prevent is units like basilisks, ATVs, deff dreads or buggies diving under the Ro3. A unit should not be able to be squadroned unless fielding 9 of them is actively encouraged. Buggies have shown how dangerous squadrons are to game balance.
If we want to talk about artificial restrictions on listbuilding, those are all pretty damn artificial. And then depending on how many points you have to work with, you may wind up with issues filling slots or fitting within your chosen detachments anyways. The only significant thing you can do under the current system that you couldn't under the old FOC is take multiple different units from the same slot. Which is cool, but I've seen more lists use this for exploitative purposes than for fluffy themes.
The big difference is that the FOC blanket-limited everything. The new system only limits things which have been proven to be a problem.
spamming the same unit 5+ times has been a problem, that's why the rule of 3 was introduced
spamming commanders, hive tyrants, captains and daemon princes was a problem, that's why those were limited
spamming necrons, eldar, space marines, admech and orks fliers has been a problem, so they are limited now
spamming 9 of the best buggies have been a problem, so they are limited now
Elite armies flooding the board with super-cheap troops has been a problem, so they were limited
Some of those limits worked better than others, but they aren't arbitrary like the FOC is. The highlander army I'm going to play today will be running 8 fast attack choices, not doubling up on a single one of them. Armies like that have never been a problem, though this is the kind of thing that the FOC is explicitly trying to prevent.
The best system is that which is giving as much freedom as possible, applying limits only where necessary.
Retaining the slots of the old FOC feels like an atavism rather than a mechanic that adds any real depth. At this point I'd rather see WHFB's Core/Special/Rare breakdown to more abstractly (and directly) represent rarity and constrain army composition; at the very least it'd be easier to have characters or subfactions switch around what counts as Core and thus facilitate alternative army composition. Let GW- at least for Matched Play*- curate which units are allowed to make up the mainstay of your army.
100% agree. The differentiation between FA/Heavy Support/Elite is a relic of the past when armies only had a hand full of data sheets and is my main reason for why the FOC is a horrible idea.
It's limits for the sake of having limits, which then screw over armies which aren't getting "ignore the FOC"-handouts from GW.
* And on this note, I think this would be a much easier discussion if Matched Play were actually treated as a tighter tournament ruleset rather than the de facto way to play. Trying to make a ruleset that provides good balance at the top tables and fun options for Garagehammer is a Sisyphean proposition. I'd be fine with tighter restrictions for tournament play and just acknowledging that my Scions list is not GW Tournament Approved and leaving it at that, but having it be disallowed by the rules that most pick-up players are using at my local shop is frustrating.
It's anecdotal, but my experience is that most garagehammer people actually see Matched Play/GT as a burden because secondaries.are difficult to wrap your head around when you don't play regularly and feel too gamey. It's also very repetitive, and it's no fun for them. Most of those people have moved to open war or crusade, but still use the balance patches and rules of matched play.
But I understand your issue and think that there should be a solution for it - but that solution should not be enabling the next flier spam army once valks hit the magic spot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: Buggies are still unbalanced, the issue has just been swept under the rug.
Game stats say otherwise. It's perfectly possible for a unit to be fine when brought 3 times and game breaking at 9. The squigbuggy and planes were such a units, because there is a huge difference between a sixth of my shooting you turn 1 no matter what and two thirds my shooting doing so.
Warhammer World GT
1st place: 1 Warboss in Mega Armour, 1 Big Mek in Mega Armour, 3 Kill Rigs, 2 Squighog Boys, 1 Meganobs.
Spamming the same datasheet is hardly an issue in 9th, people don't even strain against the RO3, the 4th place was almost a highlander list. The harlequin 2nd place spammed dedicated transports and troops, maybe there needs to be a RO6 for Troops/Dedicated Transports so people don't go too overboard with one of these datasheets.
Some datasheets that are super similar need to fall under the same datasheet, the Gladiators are too similar to have different datasheets I agree, but they are overcosted at the moment so nobody brings them in high numbers anyway.
Agree with all of the above, thanks for providing data.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/29 11:37:29
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
vipoid wrote: @Jidmah, could you remind me what you're actually arguing *for*?
I understand that you think the old FoC was largely or wholly useless but there have been so many posts just debating that point that I've lost track as to what you would actually prefer instead.
Sure. I think the current system is doing pretty well in regards to how armies are built and should be tweaked rather than tossed out with the bathwater.
Which means:
- The detachment containing your warlord is free, if it is a patrol, battalion or brigade.
- Every other detachment costs non-trivial amounts of CP.
- "Special" detachments attached to extra limitations can also be free to enable flavorful armies like ravenwing, deathwing, the speed mob or even rogue traders. Things like the aspect host could also be solved through this.
- Heavily limited armies of reknown for super-specialized forces like the speed mob, Belakor's disciples or Typhus' plague zombie horde. This would be a good solution for phantom-focused armies.
- Detachment rules rewarding pure armies to make taking allies a trade-off instead of a no-brainer.
- Free passes for flavorful allies like assassins, inquisitors or knights of the cog. This might also be the solution for summoning daemons or corsairs.
- Rewards for less detachments are roughly equal to rewards for having more detachments for most armies.
- Good internal balance in codices actually reduces spam and makes people bring multiple different units to have more options on the tabletop.
- Fliers rule is fine. Every time any army had good fliers, they have ruined the game. Limiting them allows them to be good without breaking the game - twice as important with eldar getting their new codex soon.
- Secondary Objectives and Agendas punish skew lists, making people actively seek to diversify their defensive profiles.
- Limiting the use of cheap troops like pox walkers, cultists, scouts and gretchin while giving better tools to signature troops is a good thing. Armies feel more "real" because of that.
- Many (sub-)faction benefits are tied to your warlord's faction.
What's not so hot currently:
- LoW that aren't supreme commanders suck to play. Just kill the SHA and add a LoW slots to battalions and two to brigades. Or at least remove the "can't have detachment rules" part.
- Too many layers of rules make those detachment rules feel like a burden instead of a blessing. It's a good thing that they exist, but complexity needs to go down.
- Having a different sub-factions on every detachment is too easy for some armies.
- There aren't enough incentives to take battalions. Two patrols or a patrol and an outrider/vanguard/spearhead are superior to one battalion in many cases.
- There is no incentive to ever run a brigade.
- Squadrons should go away for everything that has more than 6 wounds. These just cause skew lists, and it would also fix the buggy issue.
- One Commander/Chaos Lord/Warboss/Hive Guard per detachment feels bad. On the one hand, limiting them is a good for balance and flavorful, on the other, you have like ten warboss datasheets in the ork codex and can only run one, while the Legion of He-Who-Hates-Psykers is forced to run a psyker in battalions because all their other HQ choices are lords of chaos.
Thank you, that's very helpful.
I get where you're coming from. I don't think the old FoC was all that bad but I also don't think it would work with the current game - some armies (naming no names ) have expanded so much as to make it rather impractical.
However, I also can't say I like the current system. I believe Catbarf has already pointed out various instances where the restrictions needlessly hamper many fluffy armies and builds.
For me, though, I just feels a bit of a mess. You've got this whole, elaborate detachment system with all the different combinations of mandatory and allowed units and associated CP costs . . . and yet they keep having to tack on extra rules to actually make it work. So we also have the rule of 3. Except in the case of some Commanders, where it's the rule of 1. Except that that's per detachment whereas the rule of 3 is per army. Oh, and then there are fliers which are 1 per 1000pts and . . . do you see what I mean?
The entire system is so awful at it's job (and it only had one bloody job to begin with!) that it's basically being held together with bandages and sticking plasters.
At this point, I honestly think you could largely do away with the detachment system altogether and instead just give each unit in an army a limit as to how many of them you can take (this could be an absolute limit - e.g. all special characters would be 'up to 1', or it could be based on points e.g. 'no more than 2 per 1000pts' etc.). With a little refinement, I think that would make for a far better (and simpler) system than the bloated, overcomplicated mess we currently have.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The old FOC was all about hard choices, as it imposed actual limitations on what you could take, something that, outside of a few exceptions, simply don't exist in current 40k. Back then you couldn't just take another FOC with lots and lots of Heavy Support choices because you'd reached your limit of 3 already. You can do that now though. So much for 'hard choices'.
What army were you playing in 5th, what hard choices did you have?
At least for orks there wasn't really a lot of choice, especially not hard ones. Once you had decided which archetype to run, you had nearly identical units across players and choice mostly revolved around whether your unit of nobz was riding a battlewagon or bikes, whether you wanted more lootas in your mobs or a unit of trukkboyz or whether you wanted more grotzookas or rokkits on your kanz. Slots were merely filled to the brim with the most efficient options you owned, no real choice here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: At this point, I honestly think you could largely do away with the detachment system altogether and instead just give each unit in an army a limit as to how many of them you can take (this could be an absolute limit - e.g. all special characters would be 'up to 1', or it could be based on points e.g. 'no more than 2 per 1000pts' etc.). With a little refinement, I think that would make for a far better (and simpler) system than the bloated, overcomplicated mess we currently have.
In theory, yes, but I somehow doubt that GW (or anyone) would be able to do a good job at huge task of setting a sensible number of units for every datasheet and every game mode.
Plus you always have the issue of units that did need to be addressed as a group, like planes or daemon princes.
In technical terms, a blacklist is easier to maintain than whitelist, though the whitelist will fail less often.
I think in this case addressing problems as they come up is the way to move forward, as it's nigh impossible to get things right on the first try.
You also can make decisions to limit things based on data, but you can't get data to support taking data off the "whitelist".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/29 12:03:11
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Yeah, what really breaks the game is something like the chance of bringing 9 pain engines and up to 18 grotesques, which perfectly fits the old FOC limitations.
At this point, I honestly think you could largely do away with the detachment system altogether and instead just give each unit in an army a limit as to how many of them you can take (this could be an absolute limit - e.g. all special characters would be 'up to 1', or it could be based on points e.g. 'no more than 2 per 1000pts' etc.). With a little refinement, I think that would make for a far better (and simpler) system than the bloated, overcomplicated mess we currently have.
Exactly, that would be my favorite system to do listbuilding.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/29 12:21:15
Sure. I think the current system is doing pretty well in regards to how armies are built and should be tweaked rather than tossed out with the bathwater.
Which means:
- The detachment containing your warlord is free, if it is a patrol, battalion or brigade.
- Every other detachment costs non-trivial amounts of CP.
- "Special" detachments attached to extra limitations can also be free to enable flavorful armies like ravenwing, deathwing, the speed mob or even rogue traders. Things like the aspect host could also be solved through this.
- Heavily limited armies of reknown for super-specialized forces like the speed mob, Belakor's disciples or Typhus' plague zombie horde. This would be a good solution for phantom-focused armies.
- Detachment rules rewarding pure armies to make taking allies a trade-off instead of a no-brainer.
- Free passes for flavorful allies like assassins, inquisitors or knights of the cog. This might also be the solution for summoning daemons or corsairs.
- Rewards for less detachments are roughly equal to rewards for having more detachments for most armies.
- Good internal balance in codices actually reduces spam and makes people bring multiple different units to have more options on the tabletop.
- Fliers rule is fine. Every time any army had good fliers, they have ruined the game. Limiting them allows them to be good without breaking the game - twice as important with eldar getting their new codex soon.
- Secondary Objectives and Agendas punish skew lists, making people actively seek to diversify their defensive profiles.
- Limiting the use of cheap troops like pox walkers, cultists, scouts and gretchin while giving better tools to signature troops is a good thing. Armies feel more "real" because of that.
- Many (sub-)faction benefits are tied to your warlord's faction.
- There aren't enough incentives to take battalions. Two patrols or a patrol and an outrider/vanguard/spearhead are superior to one battalion in many cases.
- There is no incentive to ever run a brigade.
Do you not feel the CP cost is an incentive?
Two patrols or a patrol + outrider/ vanguard/ spearhead will almost always be at a CP deficit. Depending on game size, that isn't always a deal breaker, but it is always a disadvantage. Do you think the CP penalty should be higher?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/29 14:58:31
In theory, yes, but I somehow doubt that GW (or anyone) would be able to do a good job at huge task of setting a sensible number of units for every datasheet and every game mode.
Okay but we literally already have that problem in the form of the Rule of 3 (the fact that it's a blanket rule doesn't mean it's automatically appropriate for all factions and units) and, in a few cases, individual restrictions - e.g. for fliers, hive tyrants etc..
Plus you always have the issue of units that did need to be addressed as a group, like planes or daemon princes.
Sure. But not only do we already have rules for that, said rules are entirely independent of the entire detachment system. Hence, I don't see why removing the detachment system would make one iota of difference here.
I think in this case addressing problems as they come up is the way to move forward, as it's nigh impossible to get things right on the first try.
You also can make decisions to limit things based on data, but you can't get data to support taking data off the "whitelist".
I'm not sure what you mean here. It seems you could easily change unit limits the same way you change unit costs, wargear costs and, as we've seen, unit limits.
To clarify, I'm not claiming that this would be a perfect system, just a much cleaner one. Yes, GW can (and probably would) feth it up but you could just as easily apply that argument to any and every rule change. It might also help us move away from the godawful Stratagem mindset that currently hangs over every aspect of 9th like a putrid stench. As the current system is literally how CPs are determined and the only penalty for taking multiple (or just "wrong") detachments is in how many CPs you get.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
vict0988 wrote: "it only needs to be shown that it would disallow army builds that have been overpowered in modern tournaments to demonstrate that the FOC could have value in ninth."
"The argument is that the constraints it imposed were better at curbing abuse than the current system..."
"the change only needs to be shown to disallow army builds that have been overpowered in modern tournaments to demonstrate the change could have value in ninth."
I chose a change that fulfils your ridiculously low standard to highlight how low it is. Your have to show that your rules change makes the game so much better that it is worth having everyone change the way they build lists. Banning allies and taking 4+ Heavy Support choices is a downside for anyone who wants to bring them. Matched play is not just for tournaments, it's for people who want moderately balanced easily organized pick-up games as well.
It's not really much of a difference whether I bring 3 Annihilation Barges + 3 Doomsday Arks or 3 Triarch Stalkers + 3 Doomsday Arks, you are just putting an arbitrary limitation on people and not really touching most OP lists.
RO3 already prevents spamming a single datasheet. Big Game Hunter etc. already curbs skew. Bringing back the FOC would have no positive effect on the game as most competitive armies need little to nothing to fit, while a lot of fun or thematic lists that are already uncompetitive become impossible to play.
Jidmah wrote: How about addressing the proof that the FOC failed to prevent spam in any edition it existed?
There is a difference in certain units being spammed and any unit you want. Old FoC still allowed Carnifex's, certain tanks, etc.. to be spammed for sure, but not 5 Dreads in any SM army list. Not 4 DEHQ's with 6 Talos, 3 Cronos, 2 Ravagers. Not 30 VGV's with Dreads either with 5 characters. Not 4 Flyers with Mek guns and 9 Buggies.
It did heavily limit the spam compare all of 8th and 9th.
Why should Tyranids spam Carnifexes but Orks be unable to spam buggies? Ironclad Dreadnoughts (and some FW Dreadnoughts) were Heavy Support, so people could take 6 Dreadnoughts. This was arbitrary and has now been changed, I didn't even know and how would I know? There is no set rule for how battlefield roles are assigned.
Why should Marines get to combat squad their units and no one else? Bc different armies has some focus on different things. Just like DE can take 9 Talos but only 3 Ravagers while IG can take 9 LRBT, Wyvern's, and other tanks but only 3 Heavy weapon teams.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
