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:

 vict0988 wrote:

You shouldn't be able to bring fewer Voidweavers because they are undercosted, they should just be costed appropriately.

yeah, like they currently are....

Still, limiting people to 3of's is a random limitation that often doesn't work with the fluff of the armies.

Why can't my Night Lords take 4+ squads of raptors?
Why can't Saim-ann take 4+ squads of jetbikes?

etc.

Instead of adding a blanket limitation, this would open up new aspects in the game. Letting a subfaction have more or less of a specific datasheet is a better way to represent them than giving them special rules.

I don't know whether Voidweavers are costed correctly and I wasn't implying one way or another, I know GW increased their price instead of limiting the amount of Voidweavers you can take and I think that was the right call. Well, vehicle units that split up at the start of the game shouldn't be a thing. If you want to take a unit of vehicles they should actually act as a unit the whole game. Otherwise, you're just taking 3 tanks in one slot and we are back to slots meaning nothing.

Night Lords fluff does not say they only use Raptors, so having a limit of 3 units works perfectly fine. Limiting non-Troops units means we don't see armies with only two datasheets, those are boring to look at and play against.

I don't see why Night Lords need to spam Raptors in matched play, there is Crusade and open play if you want to get up to silly stuff, but don't be surprised when someone wants to try out their totally fluffy 7 Plagueburst Crawler list in an environment where those kinds of lists are accepted and you might think you'll catch it but sometimes the points shake out in a way where two units of Terminators that look the same on the surface have vastly different degrees of pts-effectiveness and spamming 7 units of one is problematic. Matched Play is for pick-up games and competitive games. That's the only place Ro3 exists. GW doesn't know whether Plagueburst Crawlers or Raptors are okay to spam because they are incompetent hacks, I don't trust them with the power. They would probably also do a lot of swings in the number of units people can bring and tonnes of people would have their collections and lists totally invalidated because the number of units allowed was changed from 6 to 3 overnight.

Voidweavers needed to be in units bc the Quins army is lacking even though they have many other units that could be added (they have scouts, hqs on bikes, for example). It was a good move to keep VWs as a squad as well. I do not like MCs and Tanks able to split after deployed personally.

Fewer slot, only buff up armies which get stuff like squadrons or multiple good units in multiple slots. If your army before required you running 6 elite units, and GW decided to give you no good heavy support or no good FA, then you are not just losing 3 units which were obligatory to run before, you are now in a situation where you don't have anything to replace them with.

Infinity is impossible to compare to w40k. The number of units alone and how many of them are good is way different. But I guess I could imagine a comperable situation. Lets say CB tomorrow says no links. a hassasin players lives with it, same with the yu jing and pan'o player. Maybe they run more reactionary units, more bots etc They have to adapt, but it is okey. But on the other side you have the Tatars and the US dudes asking, what are we suppose to do now?

a_typical_hero wrote:
I've been playing a version of the game alot for the past few months that includes facing.

It's really not rocket science to get them right. I wonder how much of this is based on people just repeating what they read somewhere or exaggerating their memories.

Mind sharing the system? Always interested in seeing what people do there.

 vict0988 wrote:


I don't see why Night Lords need to spam Raptors in matched play, there is Crusade and open play if you want to get up to silly stuff, but don't be surprised when someone wants to try out their totally fluffy 7 Plagueburst Crawler list in an environment where those kinds of lists are accepted and you might think you'll catch it but sometimes the points shake out in a way where two units of Terminators that look the same on the surface have vastly different degrees of pts-effectiveness and spamming 7 units of one is problematic. Matched Play is for pick-up games and competitive games. That's the only place Ro3 exists. GW doesn't know whether Plagueburst Crawlers or Raptors are okay to spam because they are incompetent hacks, I don't trust them with the power. They would probably also do a lot of swings in the number of units people can bring and tonnes of people would have their collections and lists totally invalidated because the number of units allowed was changed from 6 to 3 overnight.

I don't know maybe people want their armies or the stuff they like to be playable in matched played, because it is the most often way the game is played, and open is just wierd ? NL are the legion that had huge raptor formations and from them the whole raptor cult started, why shouldn't some NL players want to play a Raptor base army. And lets better not get in to why a chaos lord from the NL faction can't even have a jump pack , but somehow a BL character can.

And as lowering the number of models possible to play, GW doesn't care about what players lose. GK got advertised as an army with a cool new codex, where you can synergise two different brotherhoods and run 2 GM NDKs. Well that lasted less then 6 months, and GW removed both options giving nothing back.

Raptors could also be moves to the Troop choice section for Night Lords, like how Grey Knights have Terminators for troops. This would allow for more Raptors to be used.

And, if Infinity were to take away fireteams, nothing of my example would stop working. And there's nothing innate about 40k that means units cannot compliment each other. 40k just needs to be written in a way that's more interactive for things like that to happen. But you're right, Infinity is very different from 40k, so it's not a good example.

HH 2.0 has reactions and ways to keep units from being able to react. It's very different from Infinity, but it's still a reaction system, and other units can support each other, even if less so. So, why can't 40k manage to have a system where one/two units are not at the top of each category, and you pick based on how you want units to interact, rather than units barely affecting one another outside of buffs that usually only come from characters?

There will be a reaction mechanic in 10th, the only question is what form that will take. It could be as small as additional generic stratagems beyond overwatch, up to a whole new system.

I would love a whole system based around reactions, but not how HH does them necessarily. I'd prefer minor reactions you could take, and then more drastic ones that will severely affect how the unit can act on your turn.

For example, Going to Ground might give a cover bonus, but Digging In might give an invulnerable save, but you can't move until after your turn is over. Probably not balanced, but I hope interesting decisions can be made, and without having to wait an hour until you can do your thing.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Raptors could also be moves to the Troop choice section for Night Lords, like how Grey Knights have Terminators for troops. This would allow for more Raptors to be used.

And, if Infinity were to take away fireteams, nothing of my example would stop working. And there's nothing innate about 40k that means units cannot compliment each other. 40k just needs to be written in a way that's more interactive for things like that to happen. But you're right, Infinity is very different from 40k, so it's not a good example.

HH 2.0 has reactions and ways to keep units from being able to react. It's very different from Infinity, but it's still a reaction system, and other units can support each other, even if less so. So, why can't 40k manage to have a system where one/two units are not at the top of each category, and you pick based on how you want units to interact, rather than units barely affecting one another outside of buffs that usually only come from characters?

Then that gives them ObSec if we stay with ObSec, or why even bother at that point with a FoC if you are moving everything around? Just keep factions having some open slots. A FoC with 3 open slots might just be better in general. Or Keep CP for building armies and extra things like 1 CP for an extra slot.

I'd completely redo missions in general, so obsec isn't much of a concern. In addition, moving units around is a completely sensible change, as some armies utilize some choices more. However, as I've said before, WHFB's Force Org was much better for this, with Core, Special, and Rare. Let's say that Raptors and Jump Packs are Special troops normally, but Night Lords can use them as core. Or, if we were using Infinity Availability, they could go from AVA 3 for most Chaos Marine armies, to AVA 6 or Total for Night Lords.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Why does it encourage Death Stars, and why does the current system of detachments not allow for them?

Fewer slots would, if a faction could it, mean that it would gravitate to more powerful units. If before you could run 3 HQs, maybe a LoW cmd, and then had the option to take another detachment for more HQs, you could pick different ones, maybe a little bit less optimised. If you only have 2 HQ slots, you batcha it is going to be the best of the best 2 HQs out of the entire book. The same would got for the other slots limited to 3.

Sounds like a WAAC problem. Maybe 40k just isn't suppose to be a competitive game.

It has a set winner and loser. It is going to be a competitive game regardless of your defense of badly written rules because muh narrative.

Which by the way the game isn't good for narrative play because of the core rules themselves LOL

What I would like to see?
- Free rules
- Stratagems culled
- Return of the old FoC chart, the detachment rules are too much
- Sub factions gone. Ironically, it felt a lot less restrictive back when you didn't have to worry about what <buzzword> your army is.
- Some sort of suppression mechanic, ideally tied with morale to give it some more gameplay value.
- Units actually falling back when they break instead of several models having a fatal heart attack. Because as we all know, Necrons have weak hearts.

Spoletta wrote:
The current detachment system is striking a good compromise between freedom of choice and consequences of those choices...

I disagree. I don't think there are any real consequences in the current system. You can still just take whatever you want with a meagre expenditure of CP.

And I think percentage based systems are awful. That can lead to situations where a unit goes from legal to illegal because of a 1 point difference (or even less than). That kind of arbitrary nonsense should not be in the game.

Like I've said the best system would let you pick any units you'd like in your army. GW would just have to have a number on each datasheet that says the maximum number of those units you are allowed to have. Then just stand back and mix to your heart's content.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Then that gives them ObSec if we stay with ObSec, or why even bother at that point with a FoC if you are moving everything around? Just keep factions having some open slots. A FoC with 3 open slots might just be better in general. Or Keep CP for building armies and extra things like 1 CP for an extra slot.

because shuffling stuff around in the FoC depending on the subfaction adds more flavor than getting +1 ot -1 to certain dice rolls like we currently have

Objective Secured is a bad way to go about it. Instead, models should have a stat to represent a worth holding objectives. Even just using the wound stat would work for that potentially but the idea needs working on.

I agree. It baffles me how a lone eldar guardsman can hold an objective when a Leman Russ MBT is sitting right next to him. I mean really he isn't concerned in the least about being able to overcome a tank? In HtH no less. Ob Sec should be done away with or at least modified to take who is holding vs who is contesting into account somehow.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And I think percentage based systems are awful. That can lead to situations where a unit goes from legal to illegal because of a 1 point difference (or even less than). That kind of arbitrary nonsense should not be in the game.

I'll take those extremely rare edge cases over any system where 10 Boyz are considered totally identical for force composition purposes to 30 Boyz, or a Guard company commander is considered equivalent to a Hive Tyrant. Trying to min-max while coming in under the points limit is something we already deal with, but slot-based systems are overly coarse from the outset and have no provision for the actual value of the unit occupying a slot.

Agreed that the current system isn't remotely constraining enough, but systems like the old FOC affected different armies very differently and I don't think that was ideal either. Specifying that, say, you have to spend 500+ points on Core and can't spend more than 500pts on Rare isn't that hard to deal with.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Then that gives them ObSec if we stay with ObSec, or why even bother at that point with a FoC if you are moving everything around? Just keep factions having some open slots. A FoC with 3 open slots might just be better in general. Or Keep CP for building armies and extra things like 1 CP for an extra slot.

because shuffling stuff around in the FoC depending on the subfaction adds more flavor than getting +1 ot -1 to certain dice rolls like we currently have

Yeah make those free instead of spending CP. That way you get the best of both worlds.

Wayniac wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The old FOC did not solve any problems, quite the opposite.

I'd rather see elite, fast attack and heavy support slots going away and be replaced by a new "you can't have infinite amounts of these" slot.

It's not like those slots have any meaning anymore, GW just assigns them to units at random.

So like 2nd edition's percentages? IIRC you needed like 50% of your troops (which included like Terminators and Assault Squads, so wasn't just "Troops" in the sense of today), and then I think it was 25% in support and 25% in characters, and some armies (e.g. Marines) could get 25% of allies (e.g. Guard)

I always felt that was fine. "Troops" encompassed enough to have plenty of themed armies, and the percentages meant you couldn't skew hard into some other things.

Gork, no. Arbitrary percentages are even worse than arbitrary battle roles.

There should be something like commander, sub-commander, core units(units readily available to an army, kind of in the 2nd ed sense of "troops" you described), support units, LoW and fortifications. Some of you with more experience in using broadswords and bows instead of chainswords and bolters might recognize those from somewhere.

If I were the one to write the rules, for combat patrol/incursion/strike force/onslaught it would work something like this:
- commanders are warbosses, chaos lords, tau commanders, hive tyrants, overlords, captains, daemon princes etc. It would also include current LoW supreme commanders like Mortarion, the Silent King or Gulliman.
- sub-commanders are tech marines, weird boyz, apothecaries, noxious blightbringers and similar characters. In essence, support character which are not likely to lead a larger army.
- Each character has a command value, which is the number of units it can command. Core units require a single point to command, support units cost two. LoW and foritfications have bespoke values, an ADL might cost 0 (there is nothing to command), while a stompa might be 4.
- An army has 1/2/3/4 warlord slots, putting a commander into such a slot unlocks 2 subcommander slots. Using a sub-commander as your warlord won't unlock any extra slots.
- Commanders can be put into sub-commander slots, but this will significantly reduce their command value.
- Sub-commanders can have a command value of 0, but most will have enough to support a limited army at 500 points.
- A character can have "favored units". For example, an Officer of the Fleet would favor "AERONAUTICA IMPERIALIS", a deffkilla wartrike "SPEED FREEKS" and a Master of Possession "DAEMONKIN". A character can use their command value to support twice as many favored units, effectively getting two core units or one support unit per point. Characters with favored units pay double for non-favored units.
- Sub-factions can have favored units as well, but don't pay double for units unless they are explicitly stated as disfavored.
- There still should be a separate limit on datasheets and aircraft
Bonus points for implementing IGOUGO and requiring the commanders to actually be alive for units to be able to act freely.


Example:
An ork army could be lead by a foot warboss with a command value of 7 and no favored units. This allows him to bring 2 mobs of boyz a retinue of nobz and 2 units of mek gunz (2 each = 4).
He then adds a mek as sub-commander with command value 2 who favors VEHICLE and adds two units of killa kanz (reduced to 1 each).
As his second sub-commander he picks a beastboss who favors BEAST SNAGGAS. Because the beastboss normally is a commander, his command value gets reduced to 3. Despite that, he can now bring 4 units of beastsnagga boyz (reduced to 0.5 each) and a unit of squig riders (reduced to 1).

Disclaimer: All numbers are pulled out of thin air. This is just a concept, not a finished rule, as this is not the suggested rules forum.

Obviously, implementing such a concept would require great understanding of each army and careful testing. Since I'm not delusional, I know GW won't be able to do that, so I'd settle for reducing the battle roles to commander, sub-commander, core units and support units and GW giving us new FOC/CAD/detachments that support the new roles.

 Jidmah wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The old FOC did not solve any problems, quite the opposite.

I'd rather see elite, fast attack and heavy support slots going away and be replaced by a new "you can't have infinite amounts of these" slot.

It's not like those slots have any meaning anymore, GW just assigns them to units at random.

So like 2nd edition's percentages? IIRC you needed like 50% of your troops (which included like Terminators and Assault Squads, so wasn't just "Troops" in the sense of today), and then I think it was 25% in support and 25% in characters, and some armies (e.g. Marines) could get 25% of allies (e.g. Guard)

I always felt that was fine. "Troops" encompassed enough to have plenty of themed armies, and the percentages meant you couldn't skew hard into some other things.

Gork, no. Arbitrary percentages are even worse than arbitrary battle roles.

There should be something like commander, sub-commander, core units(units readily available to an army, kind of in the 2nd ed sense of "troops" you described), support units, LoW and fortifications. Some of you with more experience in using broadswords and bows instead of chainswords and bolters might recognize those from somewhere.

If I were the one to write the rules, for combat patrol/incursion/strike force/onslaught it would work something like this:
- commanders are warbosses, chaos lords, tau commanders, hive tyrants, overlords, captains, daemon princes etc. It would also include current LoW supreme commanders like Mortarion, the Silent King or Gulliman.
- sub-commanders are tech marines, weird boyz, apothecaries, noxious blightbringers and similar characters. In essence, support character which are not likely to lead a larger army.
- Each character has a command value, which is the number of units it can command. Core units require a single point to command, support units cost two. LoW and foritfications have bespoke values, an ADL might cost 0 (there is nothing to command), while a stompa might be 4.
- An army has 1/2/3/4 warlord slots, putting a commander into such a slot unlocks 2 subcommander slots. Using a sub-commander as your warlord won't unlock any extra slots.
- Commanders can be put into sub-commander slots, but this will significantly reduce their command value.
- Sub-commanders can have a command value of 0, but most will have enough to support a limited army at 500 points.
- A character can have "favored units". For example, an Officer of the Fleet would favor "AERONAUTICA IMPERIALIS", a deffkilla wartrike "SPEED FREEKS" and a Master of Possession "DAEMONKIN". A character can use their command value to support twice as many favored units, effectively getting two core units or one support unit per point. Characters with favored units pay double for non-favored units.
- Sub-factions can have favored units as well, but don't pay double for units unless they are explicitly stated as disfavored.
- There still should be a separate limit on datasheets and aircraft
Bonus points for implementing IGOUGO and requiring the commanders to actually be alive for units to be able to act freely.


Example:
An ork army could be lead by a foot warboss with a command value of 7 and no favored units. This allows him to bring 2 mobs of boyz a retinue of nobz and 2 units of mek gunz (2 each = 4).
He then adds a mek as sub-commander with command value 2 who favors VEHICLE and adds two units of killa kanz (reduced to 1 each).
As his second sub-commander he picks a beastboss who favors BEAST SNAGGAS. Because the beastboss normally is a commander, his command value gets reduced to 3. Despite that, he can now bring 4 units of beastsnagga boyz (reduced to 0.5 each) and a unit of squig riders (reduced to 1).

Disclaimer: All numbers are pulled out of thin air. This is just a concept, not a finished rule, as this is not the suggested rules forum.

Obviously, implementing such a concept would require great understanding of each army and careful testing. Since I'm not delusional, I know GW won't be able to do that, so I'd settle for reducing the battle roles to commander, sub-commander, core units and support units and GW giving us new FOC/CAD/detachments that support the new roles.

That's a very interesting system but I can already hear the cries of anguish of many players that their characters have lower command limits than characters they deem to be lessers. For instance, a Guard Company Commander should have a higher command limit than a Space Marine Captain, just because of how many troops each is supposed to be commanding. It could be worked around and, of course, angry shouting happens whenever you change anything anyways.

Amishprn86 wrote:Old FoC needs to have a way to add more slots no matter what at this point.

Maybe at 3-4K+ point games get one extra slot in each category. IIRC that was similar to what Apocalypse did, but I could be very wrong there.

Jidmah wrote:The old FOC did not solve any problems, quite the opposite.

I'd rather see elite, fast attack and heavy support slots going away and be replaced by a new "you can't have infinite amounts of these" slot.

It's not like those slots have any meaning anymore, GW just assigns them to units at random.

It'd solve a lot of problems, by giving army building a simple, convenient and easy to understand structure to build on, rather than the extremely convoluted mess of the current detachment system.

vict0988 wrote:
If 3rd ed was perfect for you then why wouldn't you just want a reprint and have a different game for those that want it? Is it that you want to play with Primaris in 3rd?

I do want a reprint of the 3rd ed. The rulebooks, codexs and supplements were far superior to the ones we have today, cheaper and had more content. As far as primaris go, they'd fit in fine in 3rd, just need a points tweak, especially since regular marines would go back to 1 wound, 15-16ish point models.

ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Just revert back to 3rd ed. when they had everything fairly right on the money.
Remove Titans, Grey Knights, and Custodes from the main game. (But that's really just personal wish.) Except in small support units to SM, IG, Sisters, etc.

I'm curious (as I always am when I see this kind of opinion) how would you redistribute them? Would you roll Inquisition back into grey-knights and Sisters and have them like that? Or wipe them entirely? What about Custodes? etc.

Something like that. 3rd had the whole 'Heroes of the Imperium' codex with units that slotted into SM, IG, and Sisters armies, so a HQ slot could be an Inquisitor, Elite slot for Grey Knight Termies, etc.
I'd LIKE to see Custodes and GK wiped out but at least GK had been around in lore sending out small squads to bolster armies in lore, before they got their own army and became the 'if you see us kill demons, we kill you too' faction. So I'd be cool if they stayed as a supplement attachment to other armies, rather than operate as a full-on army alone, which given the 'scope' of 40k are too small of a presence to be a mainline army.

I'd most certainly wipe Titans out of the main game. They have no place in mainline 40K except for being backdrop pieces, terrain or in huge point 5k+ games.

Karol wrote:Most armies, specialy the new ones that never existed under the old FoC system, are not created to function under the 2xHQs, 6xTroops, 3xeverything else.

It wouldn't just require the rewriting of a FoC, but rewriting entire books. Which by GW standards means the non old FoC armies would be, maybe, ready for the new FoC games in 2 editions.

Well 10th is rumored to be a clean sweep edition, so the codexes will be rewritten anyway, or at least indexed and then codified. (Wish we'd never LEFT the indexes) But everything short of titans fits the FoC mold just fine.

Tyel wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Tyel wrote:


I certainly wouldn't bring back the old FOC, because its incredibly limiting on how you build an army. This made sort of sense 15 years ago - but the model range is far higher, the average points cost of stuff has tended to fall (although not in all circumstances I admit).

So aside from the usual "change in a vacuum" thing these discussions always bring up, why are limitations a bad thing?

I don't think all limitations are bad - hence supporting the rule of 3.
But the FOC was in an era where books tended to have 2-3 elite/fast attack/heavy support options (some always had a few more). If you wanted to run a highlander (or no more than 2 of the same) you could have most of your collection on the table.

Today most books have 5+ options in each section. Now I guess you can say "that's fine, embrace the 3rd ed cookie cutter, just take 3 of the best unit and forget 80% of the options" - but I think that's awful for the game.

With Legends destroying so many units, the model range really isn't that much bigger. But limits are badly needed right now and would help curb some of the power creep. And points do need a readjustment but that'd happen anyway if it's a clean sweep. So why not go back to the best system in the game? Problem is right now whether it's 3-5 or 10 choices of a category, people are spamming one choice over and over again anyway. But at least bringing back FoC it curbs that spamming down a bit, and forces people to build balanced lists.

Slipspace wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I'm not quite sure why having more options means that the FoC doesn't work, if the whole idea is to have you make choices. Unless your point is that people will just pick the best options, in which case it's a balance issue first and foremost.

Yeah, it's confusing to me that people complaint he old FOC would be too restrictive, when the whole point of suggesting its return is to introduce some meaningful restrictions (and therefore choices) in army building. If the old FOC did return there would certainly need to be changes to some of the Codexes and the slots some things occupy, but I'd always assumed that was taken as read.

Exactly, the restrictions would make meaningful and thematic choices more viable, instead of just spam 'x' to win. It's why the WAAC players don't want structure. And yeah, there'd need to be adjustments to post FOC armies, but it wouldn't be that major of an undertaking.

Spoletta wrote:The old FOC was a plauge which finally 8th edition freed us from.

It was custom built on imperial factions and terrible for anything different... like anything in those editions.

The current detachment system is striking a good compromise between freedom of choice and consequences of those choices, but indeed the AoS system would probably be better.

8th was terrible gunk, and 9th is even worse. The game is absolute unplayable, unfun garbage right now.

And no, it wasn't built on the imperial factions, it worked just fine for Orks, Eldar, Nids, etc.

There are no consequences of the current system. Just choose whatever gives the most CP for the points, and spam away. And there's no freedom of choice or tactical thought in army building either.

Amishprn86 wrote:

Yep, it didn't fix anything and every army had ways around it bc of those issues. Many had ways to take extra units without slots, had ways to turn Elites and FA into troops, and everyone hated the limitations for something or another.

Usually though that was for flavor of that particular army, like Ravenwing moving bikes and speeders to troops. IG tank armies, Or Saim Hann gets jetbikes and vypers as troops. While Biel Tan got elite aspects for troops, Or certain Chaos god specific units. All of that is flavor, that makes an entire seperate army playable in a paragraph, in what GW would later bork up into whole standalone superfluous books. No one hated that at all.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Why can't my Night Lords take 4+ squads of raptors?
Why can't Saim-ann take 4+ squads of jetbikes?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

If FA A is undercosted I will bring 3 of them. If I still want to bring FA B then I can only do it under the current Detachment rules. The current detachment rules are also a really neat way to handle allies, you're not just shoving 30 Guardsmen into your list, you're taking the commander needed to lead them and not just ordering them around with your Space Marine Warlord.

So change the rules for allying?

Again FoC would allow you to just have a sentence in the army list like "Night Lords: Raptors and Warp Talons may be taken as Troops and FA" And there, you have the entirety of what MAKES the Night Lords' heartbeat in single, easy to read blurb.

Also, best way to fix allies is to do away with them entirely. It's another aspect of the current game that doesn't really belong and convolutes things.

tneva82 wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I'm not quite sure why having more options means that the FoC doesn't work, if the whole idea is to have you make choices. Unless your point is that people will just pick the best options, in which case it's a balance issue first and foremost.

One thing. Do you want to encourage death stars? As the 3e foc style would do that. Ducy?


Myself never been fan of death stars.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I'm not quite sure why having more options means that the FoC doesn't work, if the whole idea is to have you make choices. Unless your point is that people will just pick the best options, in which case it's a balance issue first and foremost.

Yeah, it's confusing to me that people complaint he old FOC would be too restrictive, when the whole point of suggesting its return is to introduce some meaningful restrictions (and therefore choices) in army building. If the old FOC did return there would certainly need to be changes to some of the Codexes and the slots some things occupy, but I'd always assumed that was taken as read.

Meaningful choices in army building happens with good internal balance, not the FOC. Or would you argue 7th Eldar were great under the old FOC?

Why is this an either/or choice? Restrictions and internal balance are both required to improve the game, IMO. I don't think anyone's suggested just bringing back the FOC would be some sort of magic bullet that immediately restores balance to the game. More restrictions on list building might help curb some of the current abuses, though, while also allowing balance to be more easily maintained because every army is working to the same restrictions.

Except the people that want the FOC chart don't want the same restrictions, they want their special snowflakes to ignore the FOC and everyone else to have far fewer options. Why should you be able to bring 6 Raptors but me not bring 6 Scarabs or even just 3 Scarabs and 3 Canoptek Wraiths. 3x20 Raptors is enough to make a Raptor army. 3x5 Raptors is already quite a bit.

I don't want Blood Angels to be the "Assault Marine spam" chapter, because that is not what they are in the fluff. Give them a jump pack relic, a melee psychic discipline and melee Stratagems and you've got a chapter that does melee better than anyone but still has freaking tonnes of Tactical Marines/Intercessors as they do in the fluff.

scarabs probably shouldn't be a fast attack choice to begin with though. They are meant to be the most common part of a necron army.

Ditto for rippers. Both should be an out of FoC unit where they don't take up a slot, but you still have to fill slots to take them.

 Dolnikan wrote:
That's a very interesting system but I can already hear the cries of anguish of many players that their characters have lower command limits than characters they deem to be lessers. For instance, a Guard Company Commander should have a higher command limit than a Space Marine Captain, just because of how many troops each is supposed to be commanding. It could be worked around and, of course, angry shouting happens whenever you change anything anyways.

There will be cries of anguish about anything.

And honestly, there is no reason to take the opinion of people into consideration who still haven't understood that the numbers on a datasheet are not an exact representation of the lore, but rather an abstract thing to make the game as a whole look and feel as it should.

In vision a guard company commander should be able to command a proper guard regiment which can take different shapes depending on which sub-commanders he picks. A master of ordnance and a platoon commander would result in an infantry-heavy list with artillery to back it up. A pair of tank commanders would result in an armored spearhead, bringing two officers of the fleet should enable an elysian-style air cavalry list, and so on.
Considering how many different types of officers AM has, it would probably even make sense to allow them to have more sub-commanders than other armies.

On the flip side, a SM captain supported by a sergeant should be sufficient to support any 2000 points army with a healthy balance between core and support and would only require additional sub-commanders if you want to lean heavily into a certain theme.

I kind of feel it just amounts to talking past each other.

The rule of 3 is there to balance the game. It was brought in because there were clear problems when you can spam one datasheet over and over again. Here's my army of Tau Commanders, flying Hive Tyrants, Culexus Assassins etc. Its a shame the rule got brought in just before the DE codex otherwise you'd have had armies of say a dozen Ravagers etc.

Yes GW should balance the datasheets better. Yes GW could go through and carefully curate each datasheet because spamming "bad" datasheets is rarely ever a problem. I doubt 4 units of Raptors would be a problem etc. But GW are useless and this fix works. 3 units of Raptors and 3 units of Warp Talons feels like enough to be getting on with if you love jump pack guys. That can get you up to 1500~ points.

By contrast, with the FOC if you take 3 units of raptors you can take no warp talons, or spawn, bikers etc. That's very boring.

And it's not about balance. Why is balance improved to have say an Ork Army with a unit of Lootas, Killa Kans and a Deff Dread barred from bringing along another unit of say Flash Gitz, but they can take a unit of Koptas or Tankbustas? In fact they could have 3 units of Koptas. But if they do, they better not take any Squighogz or bikes, think of the balance implications?

 vict0988 wrote:
Except the people that want the FOC chart don't want the same restrictions, they want their special snowflakes to ignore the FOC and everyone else to have far fewer options. Why should you be able to bring 6 Raptors but me not bring 6 Scarabs or even just 3 Scarabs and 3 Canoptek Wraiths. 3x20 Raptors is enough to make a Raptor army. 3x5 Raptors is already quite a bit.

I don't want Blood Angels to be the "Assault Marine spam" chapter, because that is not what they are in the fluff. Give them a jump pack relic, a melee psychic discipline and melee Stratagems and you've got a chapter that does melee better than anyone but still has freaking tonnes of Tactical Marines/Intercessors as they do in the fluff.

Nice strawman.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Why does it encourage Death Stars, and why does the current system of detachments not allow for them?

If you can take only 3 elites for example there's hardly reason to go for MSU elites. You go for few BIG squads.

Aka deathstars.

In current system you generally run out of points before you run out of slots. Even with MSU.

It's basic math. MSU=cheap squads=you fit more=you run out of slots.

So since you can't get multiple cheap squads you go for few big squads. Hello death stars.

Guess you could fill up slots and end up with under point level army...but yeah that's going to work...

 vict0988 wrote:
Except the people that want the FOC chart don't want the same restrictions, they want their special snowflakes to ignore the FOC and everyone else to have far fewer options. Why should you be able to bring 6 Raptors but me not bring 6 Scarabs or even just 3 Scarabs and 3 Canoptek Wraiths. 3x20 Raptors is enough to make a Raptor army. 3x5 Raptors is already quite a bit.

Ah, the good old strawman fallacy. As someone who's advocating for the return of the old FOC, you've utterly failed to describe my motivations or opinions. I don't think anyone should have the ability to ignore the FOC restrictions. NL players can still concentrate on Raptors/Warp Talons but they can't take nothing but those units. Maybe you could argue Warp Talons in general should be Elites. Even if they remain FA, 30 jump pack infantry is plenty to represent NL.

What you're describing about having to choose between 3 units of Scarabs and 3 of Wraiths, or some combination of the two, is the entire point of bringing back the FOC. It's a feature, not a bug.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Why does it encourage Death Stars, and why does the current system of detachments not allow for them?

If you can take only 3 elites for example there's hardly reason to go for MSU elites. You go for few BIG squads.

Aka deathstars.

In current system you generally run out of points before you run out of slots. Even with MSU.

It's basic math. MSU=cheap squads=you fit more=you run out of slots.

So since you can't get multiple cheap squads you go for few big squads. Hello death stars.

Guess you could fill up slots and end up with under point level army...but yeah that's going to work...

Big squads don't necessarily lead to deathstars. If they do, and those deathstars are effective, nothing in the current system prevents them either. Deathstars are a points and balance issue, often exacerbated by the too-permissive FOC because you can easily take all the support models you need for your big deathstar units.