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.

 Tyran wrote:


If AT was the primary feature, they would have ATGMs. The primary feature of tank guns is being a flexible artillery piece that can go from AT to long range anti-infantry and even demolition roles in urban combat.

Moreover unlike 40k, tanks in real life are fast. Tanks exist because they combine mobility with armour and firepower and staying power. If the only thing you wanted is AT firepower then you bring ATGM teams and aircraft/drones, which vastly outperform tanks at AT.

I was going to post something similar, but I couldn't find actual data on the basic load for an M1. IIRC the basic load for a T-72 autoloader was something like 7 sabot and 15 HE which is the opposite of what any self respecting tank simulator fan would want.

Anyway, it got me to thinking about how many weapons in 40k actual allow for different ammo types. Back in the day missile launchers were popular for having krak and frag ammo. Railguns had submunitions. 5th introduced Sternguard and fancy bolter rounds. What else?

On the other hand, I don't recall Wraithlords being particularly notable for their firepower, as they were primarily melee monsters.

That probably has to do with when you started. In 3rd, Wraithlords could only take 1 big gun. In 4th they could get 2 big guns, but they had to be different. Taking two of one gun just made it twin linked. In 6th they could take 2 of the same big gun, but they were overshadowed by the appearance of the Wraithknight.

 Tyran wrote:
Back to 40k, what role should be a vendetta? It is aircraft but also has 6 lascannons. What role should Tyranid Hive Guard and Zoanthropes be? Historically they were Elites with AT firepower. On the other hand, I don't recall Wraithlords being particularly notable for their firepower, as they were primarily melee monsters.

I don't have my 4th edition Tyranid codex to hand, but didn't Zoanthropes used to be Heavy Support choices?

Regardless, I think this goes back to the point I raised earlier about armies expanding beyond the practical limitations/intentions of the FOC.

Back when the Tyranid army was relatively small, Zoanthropes were competing with Carnifexes and Biovores and... not a lot else.

But now they'd be competing not only with those but also Mawlocs, Trygons, Tyrannofexes etc., and the Elite slot is no less crowded once you add Venomthropes, Toxicrenes, and the myriad of other units that were introduced in this edition alone.

I might also suggest that this is, at least in part, an issue with many armies having a lot of units that all compete for the same role. Sticking with Tyranids, how many variations of 'big monster with big gun' does the army actually need? At the very least, it would seem more logical to have just a couple of units with more flexible weapon options, rather than 10 different monsters with 10 slightly different weapons. This way, the FOC may feel less constraining because you're not having to leave out piles of units - you just have to choose carefully with regard to the loadouts for those units.

(And I'm not even going to get into Marines and their thirty bazillion variants on 'infantry with bolters'.)

Now, granted, I don't think we can realistically put the lid back on that particular can of worms. But I do think it is a flaw with the design of many factions/codices, rather than with the FOC.

To my mind, Wraithlords and Dreadnoughts should work as flank anchors, or force multipliers along with other infantry.

For instance, the Ballistus Dreadnought, being entirely firepower based and mobile may be well suited to supporting infantry squads. It gives them muscle at range, and they protect it from being overwhelmed. Something like the Furioso Dread, being dedicated to punching stuff really hard, should be there to punch stuff really hard before the stuff being punched really hard punches your infantry really hard. A big brother type thing.

Wraithlords are kind of the best of all worlds there. Swift enough to keep up with foot infantry, can tote some decent ranged firepower, and is handy enough in a punch up to worry a good chunk of your opponent’s army.

By no means a strict Hard Counter, but each bringing enough to the deal to make a handy, flexible cohort of mutually supporting units.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Orkeosaurus wrote:
Battle tanks are a mobile spearhead that break through lines of infantry,

Eh?

Outside of 40K most tanks I think of are armed with a big anti-tank gun. they often also have other guns, sure. . . but AT firepower is a primary feature. but more broadly, firepower is a feature.

If AT was the primary feature, they would have ATGMs. The primary feature of tank guns is being a flexible artillery piece that can go from AT to long range anti-infantry and even demolition roles in urban combat.

Moreover unlike 40k, tanks in real life are fast. Tanks exist because they combine mobility with armour and firepower and staying power. If the only thing you wanted is AT firepower then you bring ATGM teams and aircraft/drones, which vastly outperform tanks at AT.

As for ATGMs and speed, that probably depends a lot on the era of tanks we're talking about. I'd also guess (but don't know) that one of the main features of the big gun is that ammunition is both cheaper and more plentiful to store, allowing for sustained direct fire support operation.

Either way we're still talking about "heavy firepower".

 Tyran wrote:
Back to 40k, what role should be a vendetta? It is aircraft but also has 6 lascannons. What role should Tyranid Hive Guard and Zoanthropes be? Historically they were Elites with AT firepower. On the other hand, I don't recall Wraithlords being particularly notable for their firepower, as they were primarily melee monsters.

Vendettas are obviously big on firepower. The others might feel strange, but as the rest of my post was trying to address, sometimes it's not about the specific role and more about directing the resulting army composition.

 vipoid wrote:

I might also suggest that this is, at least in part, an issue with many armies having a lot of units that all compete for the same role. Sticking with Tyranids, how many variations of 'big monster with big gun' does the army actually need? At the very least, it would seem more logical to have just a couple of units with more flexible weapon options, rather than 10 different monsters with 10 slightly different weapons. This way, the FOC may feel less constraining because you're not having to leave out piles of units - you just have to choose carefully with regard to the loadouts for those units.

(And I'm not even going to get into Marines and their thirty bazillion variants on 'infantry with bolters'.)

Now, granted, I don't think we can realistically put the lid back on that particular can of worms. But I do think it is a flaw with the design of many factions/codices, rather than with the FOC.

They could always do what they do in Epic, which is sometimes you have an army listing that allows the option of multiple units. For example, Imperial Guard can get an "Artillery Company", which is made up of Basilisks, or Manticores, or a mixture of both. So for Nids you might have "Floater detatchment", choose any three models of either Venomtropes or Zoanthropes. A few of those types of listings would relieve FOC tension if a codex requires it.

 vipoid wrote:


I don't have my 4th edition Tyranid codex to hand, but didn't Zoanthropes used to be Heavy Support choices?

Yes. 0-1 option for up to 3 Zoanthropes in the slot who operated independently during the game but had to deployed at the same time (not in the same place) because that was a thing in 4th. Lictors did the same in Elites.

Regardless, I think this goes back to the point I raised earlier about armies expanding beyond the practical limitations/intentions of the FOC.

Back when the Tyranid army was relatively small, Zoanthropes were competing with Carnifexes and Biovores and... not a lot else.

But now they'd be competing not only with those but also Mawlocs, Trygons, Tyrannofexes etc., and the Elite slot is no less crowded once you add Venomthropes, Toxicrenes, and the myriad of other units that were introduced in this edition alone.
.

It was already crowded in 5th when they added Hive Guard to the Elite slot and IIRC the Doom of Malantai. Carnifexes got nerfed so the HS choices were just Trygons, Mawlocs, and Tyrannofex even though that Tervigon/Tyrannofex kit didn't come out for 2 more years.

Making different options compete for slots is part of why the FOC exists; that's what sets it apart from RO3. Not being able to take Tyrannofexes and Carnifexes and Trygons and Mawlocs in the same take-all-comers list would be a feature, not a bug.

The implicit argument here seems to be that if GW makes ten different flavors of tank for one faction, you should be allowed to take all ten tanks in the same army. I disagree; preventing that sort of skew is the point of the FOC (if the game design is such that ten tanks will lead to a bad game). It should just mean that you have more types of tank you can choose from, even if that ends up being three at most in a normal army. If it's supposed to be the tank faction and should be fielding lots of tanks, then the FOC can still accommodate that by either putting some of those tanks in other slots (see: Hellhound) or permitting an altered FOC with appropriate disadvantages as necessary.

But regardless, some armies are just going to have more choices for a given slot than others. In older editions poor internal balance meant some units never saw play because others were superior in the same slot, but nowadays that isn't nearly as big a problem. The important thing is just that you have interesting options for every slot, and each option is sufficiently useful on its own merits that nothing feels like a tax.

Rule of Three has the benefit that it doesn't outright tell you that you can't take your new toys. It also is dead simple to memorise and keep in mind when making choices. If you can only ever have 3 of a thing then you can only plan for and buy 3 of a thing and expect to use it in a standard game (no house rules or mega points level etc...).

In that context Rule of Three works great for those who want to buy cool toys and put them on the table with limited restrictions. It gets a bit tick in the box from those who have spent a lot; who have bought a diverse collection and who want to field it in as many games as possible.



One Downside of a combination of FOC and individual unit limits is that its not as easy to memorise. It's also variable and new balance adjustments can shake it up. One edition you can take 6 carnifex; the next only 3 then it jumps back to 6.

This creates a situation where better balance can be achieved but where causal purchases and collecting can have a negative connection. If those 6 carnifex are suddenly cut down to 3 per army, what do you do with hte 3 spares? Now you can't field them.




Of course the backdrop to all this is that in general GW rules are unstable and chaotic. They can go through huge swings. AoS 2.0 was all about big infantry blocks; 3.0 andbeyond has been about smaller infantry blocks. Those are big purchase choices that are now redundant for some players


The casual in me likes Rule of Three even though I fully accept that its a very blunt and crude tool. I also like it because its something GW aren't messing with - so it remains a bit of a constant stable element. FOC, unit limits, etc... are all things GW can and would (and have)messed with a lot edition to edition. It also doesn't help that different editions can focus on different aspects on a whim. One edition its all about leaders; then its all about troops; then monsters; then minimum formations etc... These are granular shifts toward a better game, but just shifts in general geared more toward just being "different and fresh"

FOC also had some of that.

One edition, a unit is troops. Next, it’s Elites. If it moves to Elites, than can bugger up an entire army, even if you only had a unit or two of them.

And then if your stats or points were rejigged between Codexes, synergies can be broken, or a new unit in a given slot can rise to prominence etc.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
FOC also had some of that.

One edition, a unit is troops. Next, it’s Elites. If it moves to Elites, than can bugger up an entire army, even if you only had a unit or two of them.

And then if your stats or points were rejigged between Codexes, synergies can be broken, or a new unit in a given slot can rise to prominence etc.

Indeed; plus the FOC as GW used it was quite inflexible for a long time. Tyranid players, for example, gained a load of cool elite models. But with only 3 elite slots you couldn't take even half of them at the same time. Even though tactically having variety would have been a good thing.

This became even more apparent as the game expanded and grew in the number of models on the table at once. The old FOC was very much built on the old 2nd-3rd edition era of gaming when armies were tiny compared to what they are now. It worked but then it stopped and GW shopped around for a new idea.



But the thing is a LOT of the issues are linked back to that 3 year cycle of constant change. It creates an air of chaos where "rule of 3" is one of the bastions of simple purchase driven choice. Even then there are issues but FAR less than if GW were constantly changing a FOC and unit limits. Note I said change not refinement. A lot of GW editoin changes are not driven by refining and polishing what is; but rather shaking up and changing what was to something new. And that creates a jumpy situation that's a pain to predict and work with. In some ways with the way GW works Rule of 3 honestly works great - sure its not balanced; its not deep; its not all that customised to each faction but it is dead simple; it is stable and it is easy to plan and buy around.

Rule of Three, when hitched to a Codex with decent internal balance also challenges the meta.

And meta isn’t something I particularly like, it’s a bit too number crunchy for me.

Under the old FoC though, it was a very real thing you had to take heed of, because you’re choices were so restricted.

Rule of Three? Much less so. I can really lean into themed forces with no particularly penalty unless it’s a really extreme theme, which might leave you struggling to score objectives easily. But that’s not a bad thing. It makes what your opponent might field less predictable, because there are far more possible army lists.

Now, you’ll note my caveat there. When Hitched To A Codex With Decent Internal Balance. If you don’t have that, and instead you’ve maybe 10 units which are outstanding and the rest are guff? The boredom of meta returns once again.

 catbarf wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So, how does the pro-FOC crowd explain that 90%+ of top tier tournament lists actually look like armies that would exist in-universe, while in every FOC edition the vast majority top performing lists was just spamming the best-in-slot unit as often as possible?

Outside of lynchpin units in codices with no other options and obviously busted things (hello, DG!), most units only appear once or twice in army rosters because flexibility is more important than raw power.

TL;DR: Data supports that anything the FOC tried to achieve, has been done much better without its help. If you are not willing to have your views changed by trivial things such as facts, feel free to stop reading now.

Looking at the top three lists from the Glasshammer Major in Nottingham last weekend, we have:
-A Death Guard list with three each of Bloat-Drones, PBCs, and Blight Haulers, and not a single Plague Marine

This list falls in the obviously busted category and poxwalkers used to be troops, the only thing a FOC would have prevented is running both drones and MBH.
There is literally a page in the codex describing armored columns of demon engines, and there is literally has been a detachment in the codex that encourages you to run such lists for as long as those models exists. So you are actually wrong on all accounts.

-A Marine list led by Guilliman, Ventris, and Calgar, with three Storm Speeder Hammerstrikes, two Ballistus Dreads, and a single Scout squad for regular infantry

Also a unit which used to be called honor guard, stern guard and a unit of eradicators, supported by a storm raven. Seems like a fitting retinue for mission where the primarch lends Calgar a hand in quick strike mission. Gulliman has literally done things like that in novels, with himself admitting that it was not a tactically sound decision, but he just needed to kill things for a change.
Considering all the "if you run character X, unity Y becomes troops" nonsense that made the FOC functional to begin with, swapping out eradicators for a unit of intercessors would probably be enough to make this army adhere to the FOC.
Last time the FOC tried to

-Thousand Sons led by Magnus, an Exalted Sorceror, two Infernal Masters, and three Tzaangor Shamans (half the army's points in characters alone), but at least this one has Rubrics, a Rhino, and some Tzaangors in addition to big beasts

So now you are claiming that the psyker army playing psykers is no flavorful? You are really grasping at straws here, aren't you?
When battle roles were still a thing, this army with the exact same models would have been 4 HQ 5 Troops 2 Elite, 2 Heavy Support, 1 Dedicated transport and 1 Super Heavy.
Either way there is literally nothing wrong about Magnus leading 5 squads of Rubric marines, accompanied by psykers and tsangors. This army could literally be printed on the back of the codex. The only reason to complain about it is the urge to be right despite all facts pointing elsewhere. How ironic that you cut off my post where you did.

That's zero out of three looking to me like armies that would exist in-universe, all three are hitting the RO3 limit somewhere, and all three would be violating the oldschool FOC.

According to my count one army which I've addressed to be a problem for non-FOC related reasons. You probably picked it despite that because otherwise, you wouldn't have an argument.
One flavorful army which could fit with minor changes, and one time where you are 100% wrong, with no wiggle room whatsoever.
And on top of that, every single one of those armies is literally supported by the fluff.

Happy to hear a more cogent argument and I'll readily agree that the FOC was not some cure-all for army composition, and maybe plucking the most recent tournament is not looking at 'top tier', but this condescending attitude is really not a good look for you.

At some point you need to accept that the FOC did feth all. You are literally holding a bottle of snake oil and try to defend your worthless medicine by yelling "it's not a cure for everything!" at the overwhelming evidence of it being a complete failure in every regard.

But I'm starting to see a pattern here.
"New rule bad!"
- "New rule is needed to do X"
"Old rule did X"
- "Old rule was bad for reasons A, B and C"
"Old rule could have worked if done right!"
- "New rule already does this right"
"New rule bad!"
And than then the cycle starts again. Literally half the active threads in this forum follow this pattern now, springled in with examples from people you clearly have no experience or skill with 10th edition making up problems which do not exists in reality.

 Jidmah wrote:

At some point you need to accept that the FOC did feth all. You are literally holding a bottle of snake oil and try to defend your worthless medicine by yelling "it's not a cure for everything!" at the overwhelming evidence of it being a complete failure in every regard.

Quality . . .

It prescribed an army structure for one. It was also used as a balancing mechanism, and as a tool it was effective at constraining certain potential skews. Some people didn't like it. Others did.

"A complete failure in every regard" . . . because some codexes gained a crowded Elites slot in later editions? That's certainly a stretch. Nor would it be a failure because some lists made exceptions or modifications to it. Many design mechanics work like that.

I’m still on the fence as to whether FOC was just inherently flawed, or poorly implemented. I did a thread a while back on that.

But I don’t think anyone can say it worked equally across Codexes.

The FOC wasn't a balancing tool. In theory it could have been one had GW been willing to modify it depending play testing and tournament data.

But GW never fixed issues with the FOC even when it was blatant it wasn't working.

Was just thinking of the outgoing edition of Horus Heresy.

That uses the FOC. But has a much better balance between slots.

There are benefits to filling up on say, Tactical Squads. But your Troops also allow Support Squads and lots of other relatively basic infantry. That frees up your Elite slots for actual Elite stuff. And many bigger things can be taken as squadrons. So three Predators is a single HS slot.

You’ve then got Rites of War which switch up what you can take as Troops. Not all equal of course, this is still GW.

But it did work a bit better, because your Troops weren’t necessarily Basic Spods.

And this is the issue with a lot of mechanics GW uses - many either aren't properly used/adjusted or are only used short term and never get time to be balanced out.


Basically there ARE many approaches toward balance that can work. Each one has its own gains and losses; however with GW a big constant loss is their attitude, skill and approach to rules. That latter part is the main issue and why discussions can go in circles.

FOC can work
Unit limits can work
points can work - heck even power levels can work.


There are loads of methods - however if you take those methods and put them into the GW system of creating rules then they will all fall down in some way.

I still prefer the Rule of Three overall.

Though I’ll have to get used to the new Heresy organisation rules.

As I said before in my longer ramble - as someone who ends up more collecting than playing in a huge way - Rule of 3 is great as its simple, stable and GW doesn't really mess with it all that much.

I can buy 3 exocrines and have a decent expectation that I can use them in current and future editions if I so wish. With editions lasting only 3 years that is a big consideration.

Sure you can argue about if they are the right choice tactically; but functionally you can use them in a standard game.

Other, vital thing about Heresy FoC?

18 of the armies essentially share a single army list.

Legion rules let you lean into certain approaches, but it’s the Rite of War (again, largely universal) which bring the variety.

So as well as a more even unit distribution across your Slots? Most everyone is working from exactly the same options.

Whoops all Dreadnoughts was a perfectly legal HH list. Which probably shows that the HH FOC was kinda a joke and why GW is ditching it for HH 3.0

See my “not all equal” comment.

But a single OP Rite of War doesn’t make the whole thing flawed.

 Tyran wrote:
Whoops all Dreadnoughts was a perfectly legal HH list. Which probably shows that the HH FOC was kinda a joke and why GW is ditching it for HH 3.0

This is a cherry picking "I win" kind of comment.
One exception that breaks a system doesn't invalidate an entire system.
It was simply an exception.

 Jidmah wrote:

But I'm starting to see a pattern here.
"New rule bad!"
- "New rule is needed to do X"
"Old rule did X"
- "Old rule was bad for reasons A, B and C"
"Old rule could have worked if done right!"
- "New rule already does this right"
"New rule bad!"
And than then the cycle starts again. Literally half the active threads in this forum follow this pattern now, springled in with examples from people you clearly have no experience or skill with 10th edition making up problems which do not exists in reality.

A LOT of "the internet" is composed of people whose primary form of entertainment is Twitter drama. People complaining about movies and shows they don't watch, people they don't know, places they've never been and games they never play. It's all increasingly not worth engaging in, but at the very least recognizing what's going on is a good way to know when to disengage.

Not to mention a lot of algorithums (esp google/fb) push negative content/articles very heavily. It's beyond "no news sells like bad news" and well into "the only news we sell is bad news" kind of an approach.

Coupled to instant mass appeal - which is why trigger/bait titles are so popular. Places like youtube only show your video if you get X clicks in Y amount of time to more people. So even followers won't see your latest video if it doesn't immediately get lots of hits.


Of course all this then feeds right into how people interact online as well.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
See my “not all equal” comment.

But a single OP Rite of War doesn’t make the whole thing flawed.

I only need the OP RoW in order to spend 100% of my pts on dreadnaughts & make some of them line.
Otherwise I can spend around 90% of my pts on talons of Contemptors/Deredos/Leviathans, still kill you all, and still win the game.

imo, the problem isn't that FOC was a bad design or that the rule of 3 is better.

The issue was tournament support from GW to getting routine updates in form of balance slates.

When editions that had FOC, GW almost never issued balance slates except for the rare FAQs.

I suspect people would have a better time accepting FOCs had GW been as active on the tournament scenes as they do today, fine-tuning FOCs as needed.

I feel even the most optimistic implementation of the FOC system would still require faction specific FOCs instead of a general one.

Tyranids definitely shouldn't have the same FOC as Space Marines.

Arguably it would need several different FOCs per faction.

There were also mission specific tweaks for the FOC. Some where the attacker got an extra FA slot and the defender a HS. Or certain slots started in reserves. It was another lever they could pull to mix things up

That doesn't work for pickup games nor events in which you are expected to bring only one list.

People were mocking the new HH rules for picking a mission before mustering an army for that issue.

 Tyran wrote:
I feel even the most optimistic implementation of the FOC system would still require faction specific FOCs instead of a general one.

Tyranids definitely shouldn't have the same FOC as Space Marines.

Arguably it would need several different FOCs per faction.

I agree and honestly that's not a problem. Having Tyranids with at least three FOCs - one built around swarming; one generic and one around monstrous creatures would certainly be a very valid approach toward providing variety whilst also customising to suit a specific factions playstyle.

Structure with limits is basically what army building rules are all about; letting people have freedom to choose, but within limits which help balance the game; balance the factions and also create a visual appeal/style of gameplay that's engaging and intended.
Layer that with things like specific unit limits and you've got the foundations of a system that can give players variety and structure and avoid abuse. It still won't be perfect ,but if you then spend 10-20 years refinding it you've achieve something that's good enough