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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

armored company was not prevented from existing by the FoC either.

I'm not sure where the "balance issues from listbuilding" are coming from, Rule of 3 rarely matters anyway, even in the top competitive lists.

Just to nitpick a lil', but the Armored Company/Battlegroup was a FW list.

That meant it might as well not exist.

Armoured company was a GW list in Chapter Approved in 3rd edition, and had an updated 4th edition Chapter Approved list that was still available on the GW website in 5th edition. The 4th ed list had doctrines too, to match the 3.5th Guard book. This straddled the fairly redundant 1st version of the FW armoured battlegroup. It was only in late 5th onwards that the updated FW list became the only option for an all-tank list.

 Haighus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

armored company was not prevented from existing by the FoC either.

I'm not sure where the "balance issues from listbuilding" are coming from, Rule of 3 rarely matters anyway, even in the top competitive lists.

Just to nitpick a lil', but the Armored Company/Battlegroup was a FW list.

That meant it might as well not exist.

Armoured company was a GW list in Chapter Approved in 3rd edition, and had an updated 4th edition Chapter Approved list that was still available on the GW website in 5th edition. The 4th ed list had doctrines too, to match the 3.5th Guard book. This straddled the fairly redundant 1st version of the FW armoured battlegroup. It was only in late 5th onwards that the updated FW list became the only option for an all-tank list.

And when people talked about running "Armoured Company", it was practically never about the CA list.

Hence why I said Armoured Company/Battlegroup, because players treated the terms as interchangeable and it was a kind of "I know what you meant" thing.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Sure. I'm all for it. But as we've been discussing in this thread, things like armored companies or spamming certain units can be thematic but also present challenges to game balance. But if you can give us army-building rules that facilitate flavorful lists (that wouldn't have worked under the FOC) and also don't result in balance problems, I'm all for it.

armored company was not prevented from existing by the FoC either.

I'm not sure where the "balance issues from listbuilding" are coming from, Rule of 3 rarely matters anyway, even in the top competitive lists.

Your post seemed to be suggesting we just "have it all" by allowing flexible army creation but also sidestepping problems like skew lists or units being too powerful when spammed. Generally, allowing people to field any units they want in whatever number they want risks allowing skew/spam, which are balance issues.

So I'm saying that the idea of more-freedom-less-problems sounds nice, but how do you pull it off?

Honestly, Looking back at the confusing mess FOC's became in late 7th with formation FOC's, and then the command point awarding / cost in 8th and 9th, I can see the move away and the stigma against them nowadays. I don't agree with it, but I can see why. In truth, the FOC has never really been expanded upon to it's full potential in mainline 40k, which I am thankfully seeing from this thread.

I agree that they could have been handled a lot better, and allowed more flexibility while keeping in line of "this is what the generic army of X faction looks like", but that seems to be a bigger problem with games workshop army building as a whole. There was a lot of missteps in terms of army comp, but as other stated they served to allow pick up games become a lot easier to manage.

Honestly, what really kills me is the idea we had something good going on with them in early 7th.

Lets take, for example, the Dark Eldar's realspace raiders detachment:


Rules:
Hunt from the Shadows: During the entire first game turn, and during any turn in which the Night Fighting rules are in effect, all Troops units from this Detachment have a 5+ cover save, and all other units from this Detachment have a 6+ cover save.

Realspace Raider: If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, you can re-roll the result when rolling on the Warlord Traits table in Codex: Dark Eldar.

Going off of this, you see that a Dark Eldar force focuses on fast attack choices, and gives ample room to play with all the units within that slot. I do not know the effectiveness of this FOC because I didnt play eldar, but I can appreciate how it helps provide what an average Dark Eldar player would really want to play over the standard FOC.

If we are just looking at army building with no rules attached, then something like this FOC from HH1 shows how a heavily stacked army leaning towards heavy tanks and vehicles could be balanced, namely making sure that said tanks have a disadvantage for taking so much armor by being more susceptible to an alpha strike. (spoilered for size)




more recently, in HH2 we have a singular FOC again, but with rites of war, legacy of battle and other such customization we see how it can be expanded and altered while giving limitations that can handicap your forces in return for flavor, with my favorite example being the Sky Hunter Phalanx:
------
Effects:
Legion Sky-hunter Squadrons and Legion Proteus Land Speeder Squadrons may be taken as Troops choices in a Detachment using this Rite of War.

Any Legion Sky-hunter Squadrons selected as Troops choices in a Detachment using this Rite of War gain the Line Sub-type (Allowing bikes to score points, but speeders still cannot)


Limitations:
Models with the Vehicle Unit Type included in a Detachment using this Rite of War must have one of the following Unit Sub-types: Flyer, Fast, or Skimmer.

All units in a Detachment using this Rite of War composed entirely of models with the Infantry Unit Type must begin the battle Embarked upon a model with both the Flyer and Transport Sub-types.

A Detachment using this Rite of War may not include any models with the Dreadnought Unit Type.

An Allied Detachment may not use this Rite of War.

A Detachment using this Rite of War may not select any Fortification choices.

------------

With this, your army is focused on fast hitting and striking units without having to specialize the legion / chapter. This way you can have a world eater or imperial fist fast attack army just as much as you can play them as white scars.

I kind of wish we had more of this style of army building in the past editions of 40k where it mattered, where the FOC helps focus in on what army you're trying to create rather than just being limited.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Your post seemed to be suggesting we just "have it all" by allowing flexible army creation but also sidestepping problems like skew lists or units being too powerful when spammed. Generally, allowing people to field any units they want in whatever number they want risks allowing skew/spam, which are balance issues.

So I'm saying that the idea of more-freedom-less-problems sounds nice, but how do you pull it off?

Right now : by having the rule of 3

Ideally : by adding a stat to the datasheet that says how many copies you can bring in your lists

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

armored company was not prevented from existing by the FoC either.

I'm not sure where the "balance issues from listbuilding" are coming from, Rule of 3 rarely matters anyway, even in the top competitive lists.

Just to nitpick a lil', but the Armored Company/Battlegroup was a FW list.

That meant it might as well not exist.

Armoured company was a GW list in Chapter Approved in 3rd edition, and had an updated 4th edition Chapter Approved list that was still available on the GW website in 5th edition. The 4th ed list had doctrines too, to match the 3.5th Guard book. This straddled the fairly redundant 1st version of the FW armoured battlegroup. It was only in late 5th onwards that the updated FW list became the only option for an all-tank list.

And when people talked about running "Armoured Company", it was practically never about the CA list.

Hence why I said Armoured Company/Battlegroup, because players treated the terms as interchangeable and it was a kind of "I know what you meant" thing.

Really? Because I have generally seen people referring to the official GW list in 3rd edition, where it was sufficiently powerful that it got toned down a couple of years later in the second armoured company list in 3rd edition (not even discussing the 4th edition list that iterated further). The list actually called armoured company, not armoured battlegroup which, as you point out, was a niche FW list.

Also you did say that as a nitpick, when there was a far more available GW list before the FW list ever got published.

I have NEVER heard someone refer to the Chapter Approved lists. It was always the FW one.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have NEVER heard someone refer to the Chapter Approved lists. It was always the FW one.

Well surprise, they did. And still do.

At my local shops in the 3/4e era? Very few picked up, used, or in a few cases even knew about the FW list. Almost everyone picked up the CA volumes when they'd come out though. Because those were on the store shelves. So CA Armored Companies were the norm - both in conversation & on the table.
Now and then a few of us would switch things up & use the FW list. And you know what? Almost no one noticed/cared.

I *do* like Rites of War. They seem to be willing to add enough changes (positive and negative) to how you build your army to be flavorful and impactful.

The only downside to them is that you're stuck hoping that GW decides to create a Rite of War that fits whatever army theme you're going for.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I'm not sure where the "balance issues from listbuilding" are coming from, Rule of 3 rarely matters anyway, even in the top competitive lists.

Yeah. To be clear my issue is "aesthetics" rather than balance.

To pick on Necrons, because list was top of a recent Goonhammer Article last week:



Is this list spamming anything? No. Would it fit fairly in a standard FOC? I guess no real troops - unless Flayed Ones got demoted (and tbh, they almost certainly should be.)

The issue isn't therefore the FOC. My issue is that you have the "king of the faction", another monstrous character, 2 more characters, 3 "tanks" (including one super heavy), a buffer of tanks, and just 20 infantry.
You can all it the "Guilliman is on every battlefield problem" - but how is the Silent King "there"? Where is his army?

To a degree this battle has been lost. Players I think like these models - for a variety of reasons. GW wants to sell them, which means allowing you to use them. I can't see them bringing in rules to the tune of "if you take the leader of your faction, you must also take a proscribed 1k points worth of meat to act as bodyguards". I'm not even sure I really want to impose that on people.

But I think there's always going to be a subjective divide between "this is a fluffy force that you'd expect to see in the lore of 40k". And "this random grab-bag of units happens to be really good at current 40k missions. Who cares if it makes sense".

Age of Sigmar seems to have taken steps in this direction - although I suspect most armies will fold into the new regiment system without undue difficulty. But I always disliked how often armies felt unnatural there. "Here's the king of the faction on monster, here's another monster, here's some smaller buffing characters, here's a tough hammer unit that gets buffed up and here's a couple of fast chaff for scoring/denying/blocking." How has this force ever come together organically?

I don't want to buff troops so all you see is hordes of them as they are more efficient than elite options (8th edition had a period of this). I guess I want rules such that you should really want around 1/4 to 1/3 of your points in some sort of regular infantry. (And I'm not married to old definitions of troops. A lot of "elites" could easily be troops on this basis.) If you don't, that's fine, but you are somehow now at a significant tactical disadvantage.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have NEVER heard someone refer to the Chapter Approved lists. It was always the FW one.

The CA list was the only one I knew and saw being used at the time.

Tyel wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I'm not sure where the "balance issues from listbuilding" are coming from, Rule of 3 rarely matters anyway, even in the top competitive lists.

Yeah. To be clear my issue is "aesthetics" rather than balance.

To pick on Necrons, because list was top of a recent Goonhammer Article last week:

Spoiler:

Battle Size: 2. Strike Force (2000 Point limit)
Detachment Choice: Hypercrypt Legion

Show/Hide Options

+ Epic Hero +

C’tan Shard of the Nightbringer

The Silent King
2x Triarchal Menhir: 2x Annihilator beam, 2x Armoured bulk

+ Character +

Hexmark Destroyer: Dimensional Overseer

Hexmark Destroyer

+ Infantry +

Deathmarks
5x Deathmark: 5x Close combat weapon, 5x Synaptic disintegrator

Deathmarks
5x Deathmark: 5x Close combat weapon, 5x Synaptic disintegrator

Flayed Ones
5x Flayed One: 5x Flayer claws

Flayed Ones
5x Flayed One: 5x Flayer claws

+ Vehicle +

Canoptek Spyders
Canoptek Spyder: Fabricator claw array, Gloom prism, Two particle beamers

Doomsday Ark

Doomsday Ark

Tesseract Vault

Is this list spamming anything? No. Would it fit fairly in a standard FOC? I guess no real troops - unless Flayed Ones got demoted (and tbh, they almost certainly should be.)

The issue isn't therefore the FOC. My issue is that you have the "king of the faction", another monstrous character, 2 more characters, 3 "tanks" (including one super heavy), a buffer of tanks, and just 20 infantry.
You can all it the "Guilliman is on every battlefield problem" - but how is the Silent King "there"? Where is his army?

To a degree this battle has been lost. Players I think like these models - for a variety of reasons. GW wants to sell them, which means allowing you to use them. I can't see them bringing in rules to the tune of "if you take the leader of your faction, you must also take a proscribed 1k points worth of meat to act as bodyguards". I'm not even sure I really want to impose that on people.

But I think there's always going to be a subjective divide between "this is a fluffy force that you'd expect to see in the lore of 40k". And "this random grab-bag of units happens to be really good at current 40k missions. Who cares if it makes sense".

Age of Sigmar seems to have taken steps in this direction - although I suspect most armies will fold into the new regiment system without undue difficulty. But I always disliked how often armies felt unnatural there. "Here's the king of the faction on monster, here's another monster, here's some smaller buffing characters, here's a tough hammer unit that gets buffed up and here's a couple of fast chaff for scoring/denying/blocking." How has this force ever come together organically?

I don't want to buff troops so all you see is hordes of them as they are more efficient than elite options (8th edition had a period of this). I guess I want rules such that you should really want around 1/4 to 1/3 of your points in some sort of regular infantry. (And I'm not married to old definitions of troops. A lot of "elites" could easily be troops on this basis.) If you don't, that's fine, but you are somehow now at a significant tactical disadvantage.

GW used to tie some special characters to points limits: "Yarrick can only be taken in an Imperial Guard army of 2000 points or greater" and so on. This somewhat had the effect you are looking for of ensuring important characters aren't leading a combat patrol. However, that worked a lot better before 500+ of the points can be taken up by a single super heavy...

I think the rule of 3 has been broken since its inception. Let's take a look at Imperial Guard. . They can take 3 Punishers and 3 Plasma tanks, 3 MBTs and 3 of each of 2 other variants not to mention Tank commanders and their tank commander character. A chaos player can take 3 predators and 3 vanquishers and that's it (because for some odd reason changing the turret on a Leman Russ makes it different but changing the turret on a Predator doesn't. GW just doesn't do consistency and they definitely don't do things equally between the various factions. While there's always going to be some inequality in the game GW just doesn't care enough to make it smaller than it is now.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I'm not sure where the "balance issues from listbuilding" are coming from, Rule of 3 rarely matters anyway, even in the top competitive lists.

Squad sizes in some cases - the limit pushes you to have three units of five rather than fifteen units of one for example.

...
May I ask which particular unit is both good enough to be spammed and can be taken both as units of one and units of five?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I *do* like Rites of War. They seem to be willing to add enough changes (positive and negative) to how you build your army to be flavorful and impactful.

The only downside to them is that you're stuck hoping that GW decides to create a Rite of War that fits whatever army theme you're going for.

yea, it's a problem no matter the games workshop game. I would say homebrew is the answer, but good luck trying to get people to run homebrew

 Kanluwen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

armored company was not prevented from existing by the FoC either.

I'm not sure where the "balance issues from listbuilding" are coming from, Rule of 3 rarely matters anyway, even in the top competitive lists.

Just to nitpick a lil', but the Armored Company/Battlegroup was a FW list.

That meant it might as well not exist.

there was an AC list from WD/chapter approved in the 00s

 a_typical_hero wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have NEVER heard someone refer to the Chapter Approved lists. It was always the FW one.

The CA list was the only one I knew and saw being used at the time.

That is my experience as well. I cannot recall a FW list being used, only CA.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
So a topic I don’t really see about 40K is the force organization chart. For something that’s been around for whole editions, its recent loss in mainstream 40K is noticeable for me.

What are other people’s opinions on it?

The generic FOC was a failure, even more so when you had to pay/got paid for using one.

It made theme armies virtually impossible to field with the odd exception being a named special who did some FOC shenanigans like Belial/Sammael - which was then limited to that particular sub-faction. The new system is two steps forward, one step back. We can now make our theme armies, but we have even fewer theme HQ/Characters to lead them.

Breton wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
So a topic I don’t really see about 40K is the force organization chart. For something that’s been around for whole editions, its recent loss in mainstream 40K is noticeable for me.

What are other people’s opinions on it?

The generic FOC was a failure, even more so when you had to pay/got paid for using one.

It made theme armies virtually impossible to field with the odd exception being a named special who did some FOC shenanigans like Belial/Sammael - which was then limited to that particular sub-faction. The new system is two steps forward, one step back. We can now make our theme armies, but we have even fewer theme HQ/Characters to lead them.

I agree with paying cp thing, but I consider it an vital part of the game's history that was mishandled utterly in late editions. it's a valid oppinion though, can't argue with the anti-theming.

8th was definitely GW learning how resource economies work in real team

Sarigar wrote:

 a_typical_hero wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have NEVER heard someone refer to the Chapter Approved lists. It was always the FW one.

The CA list was the only one I knew and saw being used at the time.

That is my experience as well. I cannot recall a FW list being used, only CA.

Yup, same here. It's the only one I remember too, despite having at least a couple FW books at the time. IA1 and 2iirc.

I've repeatedly referenced the CA Armored Company originally in White Dwarf (I have the issue it was first in) and have no familiarity with the Forge World list.

 catbarf wrote:
I've repeatedly referenced the CA Armored Company originally in White Dwarf (I have the issue it was first in) and have no familiarity with the Forge World list.

Same here. Whenever I hear "Armoured Company" I always think of the CA list for WD (or possibly one of the CA annuals, not sure).

I also remember how dreadfully dull any games were involving it. That just reinforces why the FOC was a good idea - it pushes armies to follow certain broad construction rules, which should lead to more engaging, varied armies on the board than just spamming the best thing, or one specific type of thing. Of course, GW can still get the specific balance wrong within that system, but that doesn't seem to be a systemic issue.

Between the balancing issues with FOC roles and the desire to let players play the models they want to play, I think the 40k Design Studio abandoned the FOC and is unlikely to go back to it.

Instead, they seem to be trying to design the rules in a way to get you to play thematic elements if not thematic armies. Terminator characters join Terminator units and similar things for all characters. Detachments that favor certain types of units to encourage you to bring more of them even if they are not the best units outside of that detachment.

I'm in a similar boat to Tyel in that I like it when armies actually look like armies - not just a grab-bag of vehicles and/or monsters, with maybe a small infantry squad or two buried somewhere in the middle.

Same reason I don't like army-building in Age of Sigmar, where an "army" can be four airships. Or, much like the example above, a special-character monster with a few more monsters and maybe, just maybe, the occasional unit of infantry.

Say what you want about WHFB, at least armies looked like actual armies. You might have large dragon or demon or such, but you'd still have lots of rank-and-file infantry or cavalry supporting them.

In 40k, it would seem that the FOC did serve a legitimate function in this regard, even if its restrictions weren't always appreciated. I would certainly prefer it if troops were good enough to not feel like a tax. However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many lists will happily eschew troops even when they are good. Thus, perhaps it is best to ensure that taking at least some troops is not entirely optional?

I also find it rather strange that people complain about the old FOC not allowing fluffy lists, yet don't appear to see anything wrong with Marine Captains apparently being 7x as common as IG Veterans.

Now, I'll freely say that the FOC probably needed some tweaks to make it suitable for current editions (e.g. the old one wasn't built for fliers or to cope with the unprecedented Marine Bloat). I'm honestly not sure whether this was best done with something like the 8th-9th system of multiple, different detachments to pick from or with something more like 7th, with armies having unique detachments to better reflect their fluff (that Tyranid idea from a few pages looks fantastic). However, I do think that some sort of FOC is needed to bring some structure back and to make armies look like armies again.

 vipoid wrote:
Now, I'll freely say that the FOC probably needed some tweaks to make it suitable for current editions (e.g. the old one wasn't built for fliers or to cope with the unprecedented Marine Bloat). I'm honestly not sure whether this was best done with something like the 8th-9th system of multiple, different detachments to pick from or with something more like 7th, with armies having unique detachments to better reflect their fluff (that Tyranid idea from a few pages looks fantastic). However, I do think that some sort of FOC is needed to bring some structure back and to make armies look like armies again.

I like how Epic Armageddon handles force organization. The general pattern is that you have a choice of core detachments with specified contents, each able to take additional units as upgrades. Where it gets interesting is how each army does it differently.

For Marines, you have your choice of a whole bunch of small core detachments (eg 6 stands of Tacticals, or 4 of Devastators, or 4 Land Raiders), and then any of these can be reinforced with a commander or a little bit of armor support. A Marine army ends up consisting of a bunch of small, independent detachments with organic support, and you can mix-and-match as you like.

Then you look at Steel Legion, the default Imperial Guard list. They're arranged around companies, so your basic choices are a commander with 12 stands of infantry, or a company of 10 Leman Russes, or 3 Baneblades. These are bigger, more expensive formations. And they also get add-on upgrades for additional units (Ogryns, fire support teams, Hydras, etc), but then each company you take unlocks up to two support companies, which are things like a formation of 6 stands of Stormtroopers, or a trio of Basilisks, or a single superheavy. So the Imperial Guard revolve around these big blunt-force core formations, with smaller support formations for more specialized units.

Orks are taken as mobs, with three size levels that multiply the number of units in each mob, and then have access to additional units as formation upgrades. An Ork army consists of several hodgepodge hordes of various sizes, encouraged to go big or go home due to a special rule that gives large units a bonus to rallying.

Biel-Tan Eldar build their formations around either Guardians or Aspect Warriors, each capable of taking some organic support, and each unlocking up to three independent specialist formations. So a little like Imperial Guard, but comprised of smaller units with less organic support, and with a much higher ratio of specialists-to-core.

And then different subfactions generally use the same units, but shift around where they fit in the force organization (and how many are taken in a single formation), which makes for armies that look and function pretty differently without needing a slew of bespoke subfaction special rules. Going back to Eldar, if you play as Alaitoc, your core units become Guardians and Rangers. If you play Iyanden, your core units are Wraith constructs.

Overall it's a straightforward system that shapes both what each faction can take and how it fits into their overall command-and-control scheme. That latter part might be unsuitable for 40K, but I think there's a lot of merit to giving each faction their own approach to force org, structuring it around unlocking units rather than limiting them, and having subfactions alter where a given unit fits into the paradigm.

 catbarf wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Now, I'll freely say that the FOC probably needed some tweaks to make it suitable for current editions (e.g. the old one wasn't built for fliers or to cope with the unprecedented Marine Bloat). I'm honestly not sure whether this was best done with something like the 8th-9th system of multiple, different detachments to pick from or with something more like 7th, with armies having unique detachments to better reflect their fluff (that Tyranid idea from a few pages looks fantastic). However, I do think that some sort of FOC is needed to bring some structure back and to make armies look like armies again.

I like how Epic Armageddon handles force organization. The general pattern is that you have a choice of core detachments with specified contents, each able to take additional units as upgrades. Where it gets interesting is how each army does it differently.

For Marines, you have your choice of a whole bunch of small core detachments (eg 6 stands of Tacticals, or 4 of Devastators, or 4 Land Raiders), and then any of these can be reinforced with a commander or a little bit of armor support. A Marine army ends up consisting of a bunch of small, independent detachments with organic support, and you can mix-and-match as you like.

Then you look at Steel Legion, the default Imperial Guard list. They're arranged around companies, so your basic choices are a commander with 12 stands of infantry, or a company of 10 Leman Russes, or 3 Baneblades. These are bigger, more expensive formations. And they also get add-on upgrades for additional units (Ogryns, fire support teams, Hydras, etc), but then each company you take unlocks up to two support companies, which are things like a formation of 6 stands of Stormtroopers, or a trio of Basilisks, or a single superheavy. So the Imperial Guard revolve around these big blunt-force core formations, with smaller support formations for more specialized units.

Orks are taken as mobs, with three size levels that multiply the number of units in each mob, and then have access to additional units as formation upgrades. An Ork army consists of several hodgepodge hordes of various sizes, encouraged to go big or go home due to a special rule that gives large units a bonus to rallying.

Biel-Tan Eldar build their formations around either Guardians or Aspect Warriors, each capable of taking some organic support, and each unlocking up to three independent specialist formations. So a little like Imperial Guard, but comprised of smaller units with less organic support, and with a much higher ratio of specialists-to-core.

And then different subfactions generally use the same units, but shift around where they fit in the force organization (and how many are taken in a single formation), which makes for armies that look and function pretty differently without needing a slew of bespoke subfaction special rules. Going back to Eldar, if you play as Alaitoc, your core units become Guardians and Rangers. If you play Iyanden, your core units are Wraith constructs.

Overall it's a straightforward system that shapes both what each faction can take and how it fits into their overall command-and-control scheme. That latter part might be unsuitable for 40K, but I think there's a lot of merit to giving each faction their own approach to force org, structuring it around unlocking units rather than limiting them, and having subfactions alter where a given unit fits into the paradigm.

These all sound like cool ideas.

One of my favourite themes regarding detachments is an army being made up of some mini-armies, like in the SM example you gave or Coteries from the best codex ever written.

Always seemed like a fun idea and an organic way of scaling up.

E:A's method also allows you to balance larger chunks of an army at once, rather than on a unit by unit basis.

It means you can change the relative value of the same unit in two different formations.

It also has built in theme without preventing you making army choices. It's my preferred method for army building, but it's easier because the smallest element is a unit, rather than a model.

 vipoid wrote:


Say what you want about WHFB, at least armies looked like actual armies. You might have large dragon or demon or such, but you'd still have lots of rank-and-file infantry or cavalry supporting.

Well, WHFB and by extension Old World achieve this by having what is effectively a FOC. In a 2000 point army, you must spend at least 25% or more of your points on what are labeled as ‘core’ choices for the army. So that’s at least 500 points or more of basic units. Characters are capped at no more than 50%, etc.