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:
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.

It was obviously a balancing tool, because as soon as it was taken away people were building armies of all Storm Ravens or all Devastators or whatever. I'll also bring up 3.5 Iron Warriors, and how many thought they were imbalanced because they adjusted the FOC. It was clearly doing something.

Obviously you can still have imbalance within the FOC, but that's not necessarily the FOCs fault. Bad points can create imbalance. Wierd special rules can create imbalance, etc.

 Overread wrote:
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.

No time for a longer reply atm, but you could have written the exact same thing about FOC. The only difference is that if you took 3 Exocrines, that would preclude taking other Heavy Support choices.

As for consistency, the basic FOC stayed the same for almost 20 years. Inconsistency came from codex changes. RO3 hasn't changed since 8th... but only 3 Predators were allowed in 8th, and now 6 in 10th . . . Also because of codex changes. Will the Rule of Three last 20 years?

 Overread wrote:
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.

If Tyranids are permitted to rearrange their FOC to take 10 big monsters or 200 gaunts then why are we inventing new rules that force specific units into limited slots? What's the point of any of this?

The FOC is a restriction, so its advocates should be able to give examples of the armies that they would prohibit with their system. Not armies they would allow. Those armies are allowed today.

So under this new FOC are players prohibited from bringing all terminators? All bikers? Seven spellcasting characters in their TS list? Guard with only tanks? Guard with only infantry? A primarch at 1000 points? A whole army of titans?

Because for the last three pages I've only seen the defenders of FOC talk about all of the exemptions they would hand out, and how they would dynamically rearrange the slots around whatever army you wanted to play so that it never stopped you from taking a "reasonable" list. But I haven't seen any examples of what they are trying to stop people from playing, except I guess the three tournament lists that catbarf objected to. And it gives me an impression similar to Tyran's: everyone wants the FOC to be imposed on the other guy but they expect an exemption for all the armies they like, even when those armies skew as hard as possible into one FOC slot. And the proposed restrictions need to be kept vague because telling people upfront that you want to ban them from playing their army is unpopular.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
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.

It was obviously a balancing tool, because as soon as it was taken away people were building armies of all Storm Ravens or all Devastators or whatever. I'll also bring up 3.5 Iron Warriors, and how many thought they were imbalanced because they adjusted the FOC. It was clearly doing something.

Obviously you can still have imbalance within the FOC, but that's not necessarily the FOCs fault. Bad points can create imbalance. Wierd special rules can create imbalance, etc.

 Overread wrote:
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.

No time for a longer reply atm, but you could have written the exact same thing about FOC. The only difference is that if you took 3 Exocrines, that would preclude taking other Heavy Support choices.

As for consistency, the basic FOC stayed the same for almost 20 years. Inconsistency came from codex changes. RO3 hasn't changed since 8th... but only 3 Predators were allowed in 8th, and now 6 in 10th . . . Also because of codex changes. Will the Rule of Three last 20 years?

Zoanthropes were HS. Competing with Monsters.
Then they were Elites, competing with other medium bugs.

Exocrines and Tyrranofexes are cool-but (somewhat) recent additions to the Nids roster.
But if you had max Carnifexes in HS, you can’t add them without removing another HS.

Putting that idea into 10th, FOC's could be a part of detachment rules. After all, some existing detachments DO modify army selection already.

Adding in FOC to detachment rules would make sense, and while it might require a bit of redesign, it would probably still fit into a to page spread.

This isn't saying that every detachment needs a unique FOC- a book with six detachments may only include three FOCs, but all six detachments would still have one of those three FOCs somewhere in their two pages of rules.

Personally, I preferred 9th's system, where detachments WERE FOCs only, because enhancements and strats weren't organized by detachment. It also allowed for multi-detachment armies, which had real character. Very MY DUDES.

My current Daemons list has…

5 HQs
12 Troops
3 Fast Attack

That’s not force org legal. But it’s a bunch of lesser daemons backed by a few mid sized ones and a single Greater Daemon.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
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.

It was obviously a balancing tool, because as soon as it was taken away people were building armies of all Storm Ravens or all Devastators or whatever. I'll also bring up 3.5 Iron Warriors, and how many thought they were imbalanced because they adjusted the FOC. It was clearly doing something.

Obviously you can still have imbalance within the FOC, but that's not necessarily the FOCs fault. Bad points can create imbalance. Wierd special rules can create imbalance, etc.

 Overread wrote:
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.

No time for a longer reply atm, but you could have written the exact same thing about FOC. The only difference is that if you took 3 Exocrines, that would preclude taking other Heavy Support choices.

As for consistency, the basic FOC stayed the same for almost 20 years. Inconsistency came from codex changes. RO3 hasn't changed since 8th... but only 3 Predators were allowed in 8th, and now 6 in 10th . . . Also because of codex changes. Will the Rule of Three last 20 years?

Zoanthropes were HS. Competing with Monsters.
Then they were Elites, competing with other medium bugs.

Exocrines and Tyrranofexes are cool-but (somewhat) recent additions to the Nids roster.
But if you had max Carnifexes in HS, you can’t add them without removing another HS.

I confess I'm not sure why this response unless you're just confirming that inconsistensies come from codex changes.

Rule of three says “Three broods of Zoanthropes max.”
FOC says “Three HS max.”

What counts as a Zoanthrope is pretty consistent.
HS, less so.

 Orkeosaurus wrote:

The FOC is a restriction, so its advocates should be able to give examples of the armies that they would prohibit with their system. Not armies they would allow. Those armies are allowed today.

So under this new FOC are players prohibited from bringing all terminators? All bikers? Seven spellcasting characters in their TS list? Guard with only tanks? Guard with only infantry? A primarch at 1000 points? A whole army of titans?

The FOC existed to prohibit types of spam that might easily might make for an imbalanced or unfun game. I could, under the current system, just take all Heavy Support choices and simply aim to sit back and blow away my opponent. (Which is more or less what I did in my one game of 10th.)

Now you could say that tactic might not work on every opponent, or maybe even win me the game if I didn't sally forth and start claiming objectives. But from my opponents perspective, even if he might eke out a win, is that the experience might have been an un-fun/unrewarding experience.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Rule of three says “Three broods of Zoanthropes max.”
FOC says “Three HS max.”

What counts as a Zoanthrope is pretty consistent.
HS, less so.

Riiiight.... but as I said, Predators went from 3 max to 6 max under RO3. Inconsistencies still be happenin.

Or 3 Land Raiders for Chaos, but 9 for loyalists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
FOC also says, if a codex has lots of good HS choices, the most they can take is three.

RO3 says, if one codex has one good HS choice, it can take 3. But if another codex offers 5 good HS choices, they can take 15.

And a fluffy demonic horde can’t be run, because it has too many Troops and HQs.

Not to mention, an all tanks/HS list is unlikely to even win most of its games. Objectives matter.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And a fluffy demonic horde can’t be run, because it has too many Troops and HQs.

Does it though? Depends on squad sizes, costs etc. Last I checked you could run 6 squads of 20 Daemons for 120 total. I think in 4th ed you could run like 192 Termagants. Codex issue.

Not to mention, an all tanks/HS list is unlikely to even win most of its games. Objectives matter.

Like I said earlier, maybe. But such skew could still make for a lousy experience for the opponent.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And a fluffy demonic horde can’t be run, because it has too many Troops and HQs.

Not to mention, an all tanks/HS list is unlikely to even win most of its games. Objectives matter.

Not to bit pick what is defined as a fluffy daemonic horde here? I would expect representation of all sizes of daemon and realistically the only fair comparison is to allow the troops back up to units of 20 if we're talking FOC.

Even if you cap them at 10, isn't 60 of a unit enough to constitute a horde when supported by all it's friends and family?

 Orkeosaurus wrote:
If Tyranids are permitted to rearrange their FOC to take 10 big monsters or 200 gaunts then why are we inventing new rules that force specific units into limited slots? What's the point of any of this?

Agree with you on this.

I don't think the FOC is good. But I guess I can sort of understand - while disagreeing - with "FOC Purists" (and yes this may be a strawman) - that want a 2k points army to be formed of 3 HQs, 6 Troops, 3 Elites, 3 FA, 3 HS - the end. You have 8 Heavy Support options in your codex? Well that's good for you - but you are never bringing in more than 3.

I think it would be quite boring, because most people would go "okay, the best HS option is X, I'll take 3 of them. The best FA unit is Y, I'll take 3 of them" etc. Which was what I remember an awful lot of lists looked like back in 3rd/4th. But it would place clear restrictions on what an army looked like. If all your tanks/monsters are in HS, then you can't bring more than 3, then you would have to fill out the rest with infantry. This was an age when you were leaning some way in the fluff if you took "2 units of X and a unit of Y", rather than dedicating 75% of your points towards a theme.

If for example every 2k list in modern 40k had to have 2 HQs and 3 Troops units - with reasonably limited definitions on what would qualify, every army of a given faction would have this "core" 400-500ish points. I'm unclear however if this makes the game more fun, or balanced, or interesting in any particular way.

As you say though, there doesn't seem much point going with "I like the limitations of the FOC, but it should be flexible to the point where 90% of armies are acceptable. Its only really these very specific army builds that I don't consider fluffy that shouldn't be allowed". Its just inevitably subjective. If Guard can bring all Tanks, why not Space Marines or Eldar etc? If Tyranids can go Nidzilla, what's wrong with Necrons going "woops, all C'Tan"?

Tyel wrote:

 Orkeosaurus wrote:
If Tyranids are permitted to rearrange their FOC to take 10 big monsters or 200 gaunts then why are we inventing new rules that force specific units into limited slots? What's the point of any of this?

Agree with you on this.

I don't think the FOC is good. But I guess I can sort of understand - while disagreeing - with "FOC Purists" (and yes this may be a strawman) - that want a 2k points army to be formed of 3 HQs, 6 Troops, 3 Elites, 3 FA, 3 HS - the end. You have 8 Heavy Support options in your codex? Well that's good for you - but you are never bringing in more than 3.

I think it would be quite boring, because most people would go "okay, the best HS option is X, I'll take 3 of them. The best FA unit is Y, I'll take 3 of them" etc. Which was what I remember an awful lot of lists looked like back in 3rd/4th. But it would place clear restrictions on what an army looked like. If all your tanks/monsters are in HS, then you can't bring more than 3, then you would have to fill out the rest with infantry. This was an age when you were leaning some way in the fluff if you took "2 units of X and a unit of Y", rather than dedicating 75% of your points towards a theme.

If for example every 2k list in modern 40k had to have 2 HQs and 3 Troops units - with reasonably limited definitions on what would qualify, every army of a given faction would have this "core" 400-500ish points. I'm unclear however if this makes the game more fun, or balanced, or interesting in any particular way.

As you say though, there doesn't seem much point going with "I like the limitations of the FOC, but it should be flexible to the point where 90% of armies are acceptable. Its only really these very specific army builds that I don't consider fluffy that shouldn't be allowed". Its just inevitably subjective. If Guard can bring all Tanks, why not Space Marines or Eldar etc? If Tyranids can go Nidzilla, what's wrong with Necrons going "woops, all C'Tan"?

And this is exactly what happened with FOC. People spammed only the “best”units, it created biting armies of two or three unit types and then other armies could break the FOC. It was stupid and dull. Look at old army lists from this era, they were boring as feck.

Then you had stupid stuff like the loyalty 32 or what ever. Power gamers just abused the FOC and everyone else was just hampered by it.

The armies in 10th are much fluffier and more interesting. Even super competitive lists have more variety in them than they used to. This seems like a case of rose tinted glasses to me. Sure the current system is a bit crap if you have a small army selection like votaan or emperors children, but that’s a problem with that army not the core rules. More choice will help that army out.

If a player wants to spam unit X because it's the strongest option in the army, the issue lies with the unit’s balance, not with the army construction limits like the 3 slots or the "3 of a kind" cap. These restrictions don't solve the problem, as players will simply turn to the next best unit and spam that instead.

Encouraging a diverse mix of units should come primarily from "soft" mechanisms, such as mission design, diminishing returns on duplicate units, and solid internal codex balance.

I’m a fan of the FOC. It adds structure to the game and helps give armies a distinct identity. When used in conjunction with other rules, it can enhance immersion by making forces look and feel fluffy. For example, the old requirement to include two Troop choices often led players to pick the cheapest, most stripped-down units just to unlock better options. A better approach might be to require that a minimum percentage of points be spent on Troops, which would encourage a more uniform army appearance and make players more inclined to invest in upgrades for these core units.

Another thing would be that switching the FOC should come with downsides as well. Example: If you want your Fast Attack units to become Troops, then everything else needs to have a minimum of x" movement or start in a transport.

Agreed yeah, ideally every unit would be equally desirable in a TAC list and the challenge of list-building would be which awesome units you have to leave behind. Not sure GW are ever going to get there, but I do especially question how on occasion one unit is just outright better than the other to the point that there's no reason for ever taking the latter. Thinking of DE Reaver jetbikes vs Hellions for instance. Did GW just not want to see Hellions or something?

Crispy78 wrote:
Agreed yeah, ideally every unit would be equally desirable in a TAC list and the challenge of list-building would be which awesome units you have to leave behind. Not sure GW are ever going to get there, but I do especially question how on occasion one unit is just outright better than the other to the point that there's no reason for ever taking the latter. Thinking of DE Reaver jetbikes vs Hellions for instance. Did GW just not want to see Hellions or something?

I think the issue - as Jidmah's sort of being arguing for a couple of editions now - is that GW has only vaguely got close to this as they've abandoned the limitations.

I think because when you can take everything, you start to view the roster in a different way. Its more about ensuing every codex has certain game-wide tools - and as a result most units are useful for something.

By contrast in the past there seemed far more acceptance that the codex should have some good units and some trash units, and that was fine, competitive players just didn't run the trash units. And if little Timmy bought into some traps? Ah well, bad luck?
Maybe its was fluffy that certain units just sucked - but this seemed to be fluff as a concept, rather than enjoying it on the table. "Its very fluffy Banshees are wounding Marines on 5s, and as a result will regularly bounce". Is it? Fluffy for who? Tyranids are meant to have no good anti-armour options... because idk, they just don't. Deal with it.

Maybe its lacking in character when every army gets scout, infiltrators, uppy-downy, some fast stuff for scoring, some heavy stuff for grinding up the midboard, some high quality shooting with full rerolls to delete stuff that sticks its head out etc etc. But it kind of works - and gives you that range of high performing units and armies in a way that wasn't really the case before.

Armies are just much bigger. That Tyranids didn't have good anti-armor made sense when they only had a dozen units and their biggest gun was the venom cannon. The lore was used to justify a limitation of GW's production capabilities.

It no longer makes sense when Tyranids have Exocrines and Hive Guard and Tyrannofexes and Norn Assimilators in their unit roster and vehicle options have similarly greatly expanded all over the game (plus you know, Knights being an army now).

The FOC runs into a similar issue of armies just being much larger both in size but also in unit rosters, it is a relic of a considerably smaller game. And that's in addition to issues that the FOC works well with Firstborn Marine lore as it fits the old Devastator/Assault/Tactical cycle and much less so with other armies that should have their own organisation paradigms and their units did not neatly fit in the old role slots (it has been more than a decade and I'm still not sure why the Tyranid Haruspex was an elite).

 JNAProductions wrote:
My current Daemons list has…

5 HQs
12 Troops
3 Fast Attack

That’s not force org legal. But it’s a bunch of lesser daemons backed by a few mid sized ones and a single Greater Daemon.

It's something that could be done if you allowed an army to use multiple FOCs, so long as the minimum requirements for each were met (1 HQ, 2 Troops).

I think some editions might have allowed this, but I honestly can't remember at this point.

In any case, if this was implemented, would this affect your opinion at all?

 LunarSol wrote:

 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.

That's true, but in this case everyone else is having a respectful discussion about an old mechanic- one that I don't actually want to see return in its old form, nor do I hate 'new thing'. I'm disengaging, but for different reasons.

Tyel wrote:
I think it would be quite boring, because most people would go "okay, the best HS option is X, I'll take 3 of them. The best FA unit is Y, I'll take 3 of them" etc. Which was what I remember an awful lot of lists looked like back in 3rd/4th. But it would place clear restrictions on what an army looked like. If all your tanks/monsters are in HS, then you can't bring more than 3, then you would have to fill out the rest with infantry. This was an age when you were leaning some way in the fluff if you took "2 units of X and a unit of Y", rather than dedicating 75% of your points towards a theme.

If for example every 2k list in modern 40k had to have 2 HQs and 3 Troops units - with reasonably limited definitions on what would qualify, every army of a given faction would have this "core" 400-500ish points. I'm unclear however if this makes the game more fun, or balanced, or interesting in any particular way.

As you say though, there doesn't seem much point going with "I like the limitations of the FOC, but it should be flexible to the point where 90% of armies are acceptable. Its only really these very specific army builds that I don't consider fluffy that shouldn't be allowed". Its just inevitably subjective. If Guard can bring all Tanks, why not Space Marines or Eldar etc? If Tyranids can go Nidzilla, what's wrong with Necrons going "woops, all C'Tan"?

RE: just picking the best in each slot, that was definitely a thing, but as I mentioned before a big part of it was due to poor internal balance. That's something GW has gotten a lot better at in recent editions, as evidenced by the fact that RO3 hasn't resulted in a game where everyone just takes three each of the top 5 units in their codex with no variety in listbuilding. Diversity of armies in 10th is less a result of the FOC going away, and more a result of having a variety of choices that are all worth considering. In a FOC-constrained codex where Heavy Weapons Squads and Leman Russes are both competing for HS slots but neither is obviously better than the other, that decision can't boil down to 'just take the best'.

To the more general point, the purpose of the FOC is specifically to prevent skew when skew is inherently unbalanced; enforcing 'fluff-accuracy' is secondary and only relevant to the degree that losing to an exceptionally unfluffy skew list is more unsatisfying than losing to a fluff-approved but still game-breaking skew list. If the game works fine and is balanced regardless of what units you take, there's no need for a more restrictive army-building system for the core game. But we've seen skew of various flavors come and go, and without more cohesive structure the solutions are often sledgehammer fixes with side effects elsewhere. Listbuilding constraints are a tool that the designers can use for balancing, creating opportunity costs in addition to points costs.

I don't think it's productive to argue about mechanics in isolation. What matters is whether they solve articulable problems and lead to a better play experience. What OP kicked off with this thread was the negative experience of feeling limited by RO3, while other factions get to effectively ignore it as a quirk of how their datasheets are structured. That's a legitimate complaint- and while I don't think the old FOC is the right solution, it is worthwhile to compare and see how these sorts of problems used to be addressed.

Or, to put it another way: If the game is so balanced right now that no listbuilding structure is needed, why do we have RO3? What problem is it solving?

The thing with skew is that Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights and Custodes exist. That ship already sailed and nothing is bringing it back.

Or at least nothing that I believe GW would do.

Dudeface wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And a fluffy demonic horde can’t be run, because it has too many Troops and HQs.

Not to mention, an all tanks/HS list is unlikely to even win most of its games. Objectives matter.

Not to bit pick what is defined as a fluffy daemonic horde here? I would expect representation of all sizes of daemon and realistically the only fair comparison is to allow the troops back up to units of 20 if we're talking FOC.

Even if you cap them at 10, isn't 60 of a unit enough to constitute a horde when supported by all it's friends and family?

This. A "fluffy daemonic horde" using the 6th edition book and the FOC could be a Bloodthirster, a herald of khorne, 6 units of 20 bloodletters, 3 units of 20 furies and/or flesh hounds, 3 units of 9 bloodcrushers, and 3 khorne daemon princes (heavy support picks if army contains a bloodthirster).

That is a bloodthirster, herald, 3 daemon princes, 120 bloodletters, 27 bloodcrushers, and 60 furies/flesh hounds. Sounds like quite the horde to me.

 catbarf wrote:
Or, to put it another way: If the game is so balanced right now that no listbuilding structure is needed, why do we have RO3? What problem is it solving?

I'd say it solves two problems which became evident in 8th and are why it was brought in.

1. GW will get the points wrong on certain units. If someone spams that unit they exacerbate that error. GW will always get the points wrong - although updates every few months pick it up faster than updates every few years. But the RO3 serves to keep things in check.

2. I think spam also facilitated weird armies that GW fundamentally didn't like (which you could fairly argue the FOC resolved). I think GW reacted very quickly to "all Stormravens" for instance - because mass planes was just not what 40k is meant to be and it would harm the perception of the game. I think there was a similar kick off about characters - such as "mass Culexus" lists that iirc had weird interactions for how shooting worked - and to a lesser degree that massively undercosted chaos forgeworld pysker (maleific lords?) that could smite spam (this would also lead to changes to smite.) Mass Tau Commanders that exploited 8th's initially broken deepstrike rules etc.

Which perhaps also gets to the rub. Even if the points of a Ravager are fine, the whole game starts to warp if I can bring say 15 of them and just them. You can say the FOC would fix this. But I think 15 Ravagers as "15 Ravagers", would be different from say 3 Ravagers, 4 Talos, 2 Cronos, a bunch of Raiders with Lance-equipped Kabalites and a Voidraven Bomber etc. The first is spam - the second is a somewhat varied army, even if a lot of those units were in the HS slot in 7th. The units play slightly differently rather than all being clones of each other.

Tyel wrote:

I think the issue - as Jidmah's sort of being arguing for a couple of editions now - is that GW has only vaguely got close to this as they've abandoned the limitations.

I think because when you can take everything, you start to view the roster in a different way. Its more about ensuing every codex has certain game-wide tools - and as a result most units are useful for something.

As catbarf says, and as mentioned before in the thread, it would sure seem that constant updates to points and rule tweaks are the primary source of unit balance here, not the lack of a Force Org.

Tyel wrote:
I'd say it solves two problems which became evident in 8th and are why it was brought in.

1. GW will get the points wrong on certain units. If someone spams that unit they exacerbate that error. GW will always get the points wrong - although updates every few months pick it up faster than updates every few years. But the RO3 serves to keep things in check.

2. I think spam also facilitated weird armies that GW fundamentally didn't like (which you could fairly argue the FOC resolved). I think GW reacted very quickly to "all Stormravens" for instance - because mass planes was just not what 40k is meant to be and it would harm the perception of the game. I think there was a similar kick off about characters - such as "mass Culexus" lists that iirc had weird interactions for how shooting worked - and to a lesser degree that massively undercosted chaos forgeworld pysker (maleific lords?) that could smite spam (this would also lead to changes to smite.) Mass Tau Commanders that exploited 8th's initially broken deepstrike rules etc.

Which perhaps also gets to the rub. Even if the points of a Ravager are fine, the whole game starts to warp if I can bring say 15 of them and just them. You can say the FOC would fix this. But I think 15 Ravagers as "15 Ravagers", would be different from say 3 Ravagers, 4 Talos, 2 Cronos, a bunch of Raiders with Lance-equipped Kabalites and a Voidraven Bomber etc. The first is spam - the second is a somewhat varied army, even if a lot of those units were in the HS slot in 7th. The units play slightly differently rather than all being clones of each other.

Right, so I think that example highlights the two problems that OP is getting at as a result of the way datasheets are split up.

The first is that dividing up datasheets by seemingly arbitrary criteria means that in many cases, spamming a particular unit is not actually limited. Some units are actually limited to 3 per army, but some are essentially limited to 3 per weapon option. So if the premise is that non-battleline units should be limited to 3 per army for the sake of balance, but I can take 21 Leman Russes, then this is de facto not working. If the points are off on one Russ variant, chances are they're off on all of them.

And the second is that it's just inconsistent. You can't take 2 Hammerheads with railguns and 2 with ion cannons- that's 4 of the same datasheet- but you can take 21 Leman Russes as long as they have no more than 3 of the same primary weapon. And if taking 21 Leman Russes should be allowed, because it's fluffy and doesn't break the game, why is the Tau equivalent off-limits?

I think we're all in agreement that it is reasonable to have limits on how many of a single unit you can take, and that the game is better when you can't plop down twenty of the same model and call it an army. The point of contention is whether that limit should be by datasheet- essentially, making army composition limits a function of how GW chooses to present rules for quick reference- or whether it should be something broader than that.

The FOC was a system that set the limit by battlefield role, asserting that taking too many of the same general class of thing is likely to result in a bad time. I don't think that premise ever held up all that well, but it maintained a lot of traction because it did have that secondary function of forcing the sort of 'well-rounded' army that I think the designers wanted to see.

Someone upthread mentioned a keyword system being used for limits and I think you could do a lot with that. At the simplest level, you could use a unit name keyword rather than the datasheet to determine limits. Or go a step further and use a keyword like 'Restricted - Stormraven' to only limit duplicate instances of specific units, and units without any such restriction can be taken in any number.

Again, it comes down to figuring out what you are trying to solve. The current implementation works well enough despite its flaws, insofar as it's a bare-minimum implementation for a game that has been generally reworked to be less broken by skew than older editions, but I think OP's gripes are still legitimate even though I disagree with the conclusion.

 catbarf wrote:
Right, so I think that example highlights the two problems that OP is getting at as a result of the way datasheets are split up.

I don't really disagree.

I'm not - for want of a better word - a RO3 purist. Its been a complaint since it started that some armies benefit from squadrons of vehicles (or monsters) - while others did not. Why can I only take 3 of such and such a vehicle - while they can take 9? I think there's some justification here in terms of points - because taking say 9 of a light 75 point vehicle, isn't much more points than taking 3 of a 200 point vehicle etc. But its still an issue. As you say now you have armies which can effectively doubleup on weapon-variants (and usually rule variants) - and those who can't. Its not really clear that list building has played any part in the fact Marines could previously run 3 Predators and could now run 6. (Although - one has to ask, does anyone want to, and if they did does it matter?) Its just that this is how datasheets work now, and they wanted to give the different weapon variant models different rules.

I also think far more units, which may have previously been "elites" or whatever in the old editions, should probably be battleline now - or the detachment system should much more often make units battleline if they fit the theme (they have done this with some obviously).
If for example someone wants to run more than 3 units of Howling Banshees because they are playing Iybraesil, its hard to see how its going to break the game competitively. But maybe you need GW to make the "Iybraesil" detachment first. The RO3 is very simple - versus the rule of "sometimes you can only take 2, sometimes you can take 4, or 6, or whatever". Simplicity is a good thing.

One of the issues for the FOC is are you allowing multiples? Can I have 4 HQs, 6 Troops (or whatever) and then unlock 6 HS slots? Some armies have historically had very cheap HQs and troops so its barely a limitation - others not so much. Then you'd have other armies where the average unit cost is only about 100 points - and they'd struggle hit 2k with 6 troops, 3 elites, 3 FA and 3 HS.

You could have a system of keywords for limitations. As you say though, it depends on what issue you are trying to solve. The OP's complaint is that he can't run more than 3 Custodes tanks. You can already spend a third of a 2k force on those tanks if you want. As per the above I can see why you might want to go further, especially if your fluff was "I'm playing Custodes tanks the end". But I don't really see it as essential to the game. As Orkeosaurus said - it comes down to what armies you don't think should exist. I'm not inspired to think that Custodes need to be able to run 6 of these things.

I mean I've said I don't like AoS-style armies. If you wanted to run 5-6 C'Tan and 2 Doomsday Arks (or whatever fits in the points) I think you should be extremely disadvantaged versus someone just running mainly infantry. Because they should be able to blob up all the objectives and accordingly win the game. But it hasn't always worked that way - and you might not want it to. Theres plenty of people who dislike how 40k has (somewhat) turned into "die slowly on objectives but win games". Knights exist etc and aren't going to disappear.

Stepping back from this, I think there are two separate concepts that are represented by these two methods.

Freedom of selection and simulationist structure.

The FoC creates a level of inuniverse simulation of the army. The current rule of 3 is a purely abstract mechanic to allow a player to make an army however they like. The current system is emblematic of the abstraction of the current 40k rules, where the unit is only loosely represented by its rules and the mechanics are more important than what they represent. IMO, there are inherent simulationist restrictions that you really shouldn't be able to step around if you want to play inside the 40k setting. Ultramarines can't deploy Grey Hunters, and they don't deploy armies based on a Ro3 concept. The roleplay simulation of 40k has been leeched from the game until it's become more and more checkers with fancy pieces.

Whether a 3rd ed FoC is suitable or not, some form of army structure should exist in the game or you're not really playing 40k. I saw someone mention E:A and I would endorse that too - each army has its own FoC structure that is balanced against what that army can deploy, while also showing how that army actually fights.

No military leader in 40k has the freedom to deploy an army in the way a 40k player can, nor the strategic inclination to do so. Any truly unusual force comp would be a highly specific scenario from a very particular set of circumstances - which would be built into the scenario you play.



Balance and simulation aren't mutually exclusive and the less the game relies on the setting to dictate what rules units and armies should use, the less inclined I am to actually play the game. I play it to play 40k, no to play a set of game mechanics with expensive pieces.

 Hellebore wrote:
Stepping back from this, I think there are two separate concepts that are represented by these two methods.

Freedom of selection and simulationist structure.

I see what you're driving at, and I don't specifically agree or disagree with this... But my view is different. I feel like both "Freedom of Selection" and "Simulationist" are both terms that are in the eye of the beholder; they are relative as well as subjective, and as such, they are best both placed on a spectrum.

 Hellebore wrote:

The FoC creates a level of inuniverse simulation of the army.

It does, for sure. But so did the formations of 7th, the organizational detachments of 8th and 9th and so does the current detachment system of 10th. You can argue that these editions fall at different places on the Freedom vs. simulation continuum, but what you cannot do is say they don't provide an in-universe simulation of how the army works, because they all objectively do- it may not just be the simulation you prefer.

 Hellebore wrote:

The current rule of 3 is a purely abstract mechanic to allow a player to make an army however they like.

This is true, but ALL wargame rules are a degree of abstraction. Again, abstract to realistic is spectrum, and where things sit on that spectrum is influenced by contextual factors.

 Hellebore wrote:

The current system is emblematic of the abstraction of the current 40k rules, where the unit is only loosely represented by its rules and the mechanics are more important than what they represent.

From other discussions on this board, I can piece together what you mean by this: in the past, the rules used to express a unit's capabilities were more closely linked to traits which were visible on the model, or at the army-wide scale by unit selection (particularly as impacted by specialized version of an FOC). And I can absolutely agree with that point.

But I DON'T agree that all unit rules and strats are necessarily more "Abstract" because they can't easily be seen on a model. If anything, I think restricting a unit's capabilities to only that which can be modelled or represented by unit selection is the abstraction. And of course, that's just as subjective and relativistic as any assertions that may be made about the "realism" of an FOC.

 Hellebore wrote:

IMO, there are inherent simulationist restrictions that you really shouldn't be able to step around if you want to play inside the 40k setting.

The problem is that not everyone agrees on what those simulationist restrictions should be, and I think the idea behind people's preference for Ro3 is that they are more likely to be able create THEIR OWN simulationist restrictions, rather than struggle to conform their head-cannon armies into an arbitrary shape that GW says MUST BE USED ALWAYS.

 Hellebore wrote:

Ultramarines can't deploy Grey Hunters,

False equivalency- that's a subfaction/ chapter issue and has absolutley zero to do with either Ro3 or FOC.

 Hellebore wrote:

and they don't deploy armies based on a Ro3 concept.

In point of fact, most likely they do, since most of the armies created using the FOC are perfectly legal using Ro3. Not all Ro3 armies are FOC legal, but most FOC armies are Ro3 legal. It sounds like you're implying that Ro3 PREVENTS you from playing the idealized Ultramarines army that lives in your head; it doesn't. Instead, it enables you to fight a custom mission in a narrative campaign were six squads of bikes have to cross through hostile Ork territory to bring a message to an isolated outpost that they need to evacuate before the arrival of a full scale onslaught, or fight round two in an attrition campaign when all of the obligatory troops units were wiped out in round one.

Those are both totally feasible conditions that can occur, and demonstrate that the principle that always, UM, SW, any flavour of marine or any other faction ALWAYS deploy according to a) the units available to them based on theatre of war context and b) the units among what is available that are most likely to achieve a given mission in a given theatre of war, and not an arbitrary "we must never have more than 3 elites and 3 fast attack."

Ro3 allows you to build the army based on availability, objective and battlefield conditions. FOC does not. So what's more realistic now?

 Hellebore wrote:

The roleplay simulation of 40k has been leeched from the game until it's become more and more checkers with fancy pieces.

The roleplay in 40k got kicked into high gear in 9th. It's slipped a notch since then, but the FOC era editions had nowhere near the roleplay potential of 9th or 10th, as I just described above.

Did all your troops die in a game, and you got no supply lines to get more? I guess you just have to give up and surrender, because Ultramarines will only ever deploy if they can bring two units of troops. Seriously dude. That's the system you're saying has more roleplay potential.

 Hellebore wrote:

Whether a 3rd ed FoC is suitable or not, some form of army structure should exist in the game or you're not really playing 40k. I saw someone mention E:A and I would endorse that too - each army has its own FoC structure that is balanced against what that army can deploy, while also showing how that army actually fights.

How that army actually fights based on what? White Scars love their bikes, but if I Kill them all in one battle, what DO they do in the next?

 Hellebore wrote:

No military leader in 40k has the freedom to deploy an army in the way a 40k player can, nor the strategic inclination to do so.

I beg your pardon, an Inquisitor has the freedom to do whatever they hell they want unless another Inquisitor says they can't, and if you disagree, it's only a matter of time until you disappear.

 Hellebore wrote:

Any truly unusual force comp would be a highly specific scenario from a very particular set of circumstances - which would be built into the scenario you play.

Now who's dealing in abstractions? If an army is flexible enough to adjust its composition to accommodate for battlefield scenarios, why isn't that flexibility represented in the organizational capacity of the army and instead connected to the battle and not the army at all?

 Hellebore wrote:


Balance and simulation aren't mutually exclusive and the less the game relies on the setting to dictate what rules units and armies should use, the less inclined I am to actually play the game. I play it to play 40k, no to play a set of game mechanics with expensive pieces.

Again there's very little you can do with an FoC and a hundred books of specific missions that allow you to break the "standard" FoC that you couldn't also do with the Ro3 and as a bonus, you won't even need the 100 books of specific missions that break the "standard" FOC, because the army's flexibility would be represented the rules for the army's organizational structure, not rules that exist only in a specific mission.

What you're concerned about is the POTENTIAL for abuse. And that's fair: Ro3 is probably easier to abuse, especially given the datasheet issue that OP is concerned with; restoring points for equipment in order to reduce datasheet duplication COULD work, but it would take some finesse to make sure that the datacard rule synergized with all possible builds for the unit.

Also, for IG at least, they have mono-unit companies.
For example, a tank company isn’t mixed with infantry.

Multiple companies are USUALLY deployed together… but not always.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Stepping back from this, I think there are two separate concepts that are represented by these two methods.

Freedom of selection and simulationist structure.

I see what you're driving at, and I don't specifically agree or disagree with this... But my view is different. I feel like both "Freedom of Selection" and "Simulationist" are both terms that are in the eye of the beholder; they are relative as well as subjective, and as such, they are best both placed on a spectrum.

While they are somewhat subjective and only GW 'owns' the answer, they aren't completely bereft of structure or no one could tell you what 40k was. That spectrum isn't limitless, it's constrained within the end posts of what constitutes 40k. It's not micky mouse to hannibal, or Smurfs to MLP. It's an example of a constrained infinity - it contains all possible expressions of 40k but it doesn't contain X. Because X is not an expression possible in 40k.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

The FoC creates a level of inuniverse simulation of the army.

It does, for sure. But so did the formations of 7th, the organizational detachments of 8th and 9th and so does the current detachment system of 10th. You can argue that these editions fall at different places on the Freedom vs. simulation continuum, but what you cannot do is say they don't provide an in-universe simulation of how the army works, because they all objectively do- it may not just be the simulation you prefer.

I don't believe you can just add simulationist to anything and gain its value. The current limit of 3 has no inuniverse mechanism it's attached to. No strategy that orks nids and tau all have in common that explains why orks can only have 3 deff dreads, nids 3 carnifexes and tau 3 riptides rather than 4, 5 and 6 respectively or any other number. There is nothing about it that makes it a 40k concept. And thus it cannot be simulationist of 40k, because it doesn't represent anything except the out of universe abstract rules.

The 3rd FoC was also abstract, but it had tangible concepts underpinning it - like you need HQ and troops as the basis of your army, that there are fewer elites available than troops and so on. How that was represented with the specific numbers was the abstract part, but the concept that these are all interconnected and there are relative limitations, was a simulation of the realities of the setting.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

The current rule of 3 is a purely abstract mechanic to allow a player to make an army however they like.

This is true, but ALL wargame rules are a degree of abstraction. Again, abstract to realistic is spectrum, and where things sit on that spectrum is influenced by contextual factors.

That's a truism that doesn't really add to the conversation though. That abstraction exists is a given, as it's already abstract because it's a game. Where the abstraction gains simulationist value is when it's tangibly connected to a concept within the setting. That there is a logical progression from 'power swords are able to cut through armour and damage enemies easily' to 'power swords grant +1S and have -2AP and the reader can see that representation.

The rule of 3 has no such connection and the OP's point about the arbitrariness of datasheets determining how many of a concept you can have illustrates that further. You can take 15 marine captains using the Ro3, but only 6 terminator squads, while every chapter of marines has a maximum of 10 Captains and 100 terminators. If you changed the Ro3 to use keywords to reduce captains to 3, you'd also halve the number of terminators you could take. There are other ways you can play with it, but the fact is that the Ro3 has no inuniverse connection.

A force structure framework of some kind that references the logistics of armies, the relative availability of one part of the army to others (elites vs troops etc) and that you have SOME but not LOTS of HQs that form the command structure, has a connection to the setting.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

The current system is emblematic of the abstraction of the current 40k rules, where the unit is only loosely represented by its rules and the mechanics are more important than what they represent.

From other discussions on this board, I can piece together what you mean by this: in the past, the rules used to express a unit's capabilities were more closely linked to traits which were visible on the model, or at the army-wide scale by unit selection (particularly as impacted by specialized version of an FOC). And I can absolutely agree with that point.

But I DON'T agree that all unit rules and strats are necessarily more "Abstract" because they can't easily be seen on a model. If anything, I think restricting a unit's capabilities to only that which can be modelled or represented by unit selection is the abstraction. And of course, that's just as subjective and relativistic as any assertions that may be made about the "realism" of an FOC.

It's not specifically about the appearance, but their background. A marine captain now has a rule called finest hour where it gets extra attacks that are DW. That's not at all related to the character or its abilities, it's a mechanic added to differentiate it from other captains. A lieutenant has tactical precision that makes his unit have LH. Again that's not represented by in-universe anything, it's just a differentiation rule. And a lieutenant with a combi weapon can 'evade and survive' because he has a combi weapon. These are not connected to the weapon or the rank, they're just mechanics for the sake of them. Each chaplain has their own unique rule as well, which doesn't represent anything to do with their or training, and everything to do with differentiating them from the same rank model with different armour or equipment. Terminator armour doesn't give you 4+ FnP against MW, or everyone wearing it would get that. But a Chaplain does. For 30 years it didn't and now it does. You'd think such a powerful ability would be noted in the annals of marine chapter legends, or as part of their training - put fred in that squad and put them in front of the big guns, he seems to be able to bounce cannon shells off his bonce... and there are 3 guys who can do that and we can only ever deploy just 3. We have enough terminator armour for all our chaplains but the other 9 all have to be equipped differently. They also forget how to bounce shells off their heads when not in terminator armour. It would be handy if fred could lead a jump pack squad with that ability, but darn it he can only manifest bonce bounce in terminator armour for some reason.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

IMO, there are inherent simulationist restrictions that you really shouldn't be able to step around if you want to play inside the 40k setting.

The problem is that not everyone agrees on what those simulationist restrictions should be, and I think the idea behind people's preference for Ro3 is that they are more likely to be able create THEIR OWN simulationist restrictions, rather than struggle to conform their head-cannon armies into an arbitrary shape that GW says MUST BE USED ALWAYS.

My simulationist restriction is that I get to deploy 6 bladeguard squads, 4 aggressor squads and 5 infernus squads. But i can't do that - GW will let me have 15 captains though. If it's truly about the player's choice, they wouldn't put any restrictions at all in. If they are going to put them, then they should be at least notionally tied the army and its means of fighting, or it's clearly a bandaid visible from orbit, rather than one painted in camo that is easy to miss.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

Ultramarines can't deploy Grey Hunters,

False equivalency- that's a subfaction/ chapter issue and has absolutley zero to do with either Ro3 or FOC.

If I was comparing those aspects then yes, But i was specifically using it as an example of an immutable thing that 40k prevents you doing by its nature. That's all I was discussing. 40k has objective truths that it constrains you with, such as that example. It also has objective truths about how armies deploy, but they are a wider spectrum than the binary yes or no of some units. It's still an actual restriction though and 3 of a unit except 15 captains is not one of those inuniverse restrictions.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

and they don't deploy armies based on a Ro3 concept.

In point of fact, most likely they do, since most of the armies created using the FOC are perfectly legal using Ro3. Not all Ro3 armies are FOC legal, but most FOC armies are Ro3 legal. It sounds like you're implying that Ro3 PREVENTS you from playing the idealized Ultramarines army that lives in your head; it doesn't. Instead, it enables you to fight a custom mission in a narrative campaign were six squads of bikes have to cross through hostile Ork territory to bring a message to an isolated outpost that they need to evacuate before the arrival of a full scale onslaught, or fight round two in an attrition campaign when all of the obligatory troops units were wiped out in round one.

Those are both totally feasible conditions that can occur, and demonstrate that the principle that always, UM, SW, any flavour of marine or any other faction ALWAYS deploy according to a) the units available to them based on theatre of war context and b) the units among what is available that are most likely to achieve a given mission in a given theatre of war, and not an arbitrary "we must never have more than 3 elites and 3 fast attack."

Ro3 allows you to build the army based on availability, objective and battlefield conditions. FOC does not. So what's more realistic now?

as I said previously, I'm not advocating for a return to 3rd ed FoCs, only that the concept of a force structure that you must adhere to are inherently more connected to the setting than the abstraction of 3s. Your examples are specific scenarios and I said would appear in those scenarios. but it's not believable at all that your army of 15 captains and 6 rhinos are fighting more than one battle in that unusual scenario, let alone an entire campaign just because you can put them together that way.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

The roleplay simulation of 40k has been leeched from the game until it's become more and more checkers with fancy pieces.

The roleplay in 40k got kicked into high gear in 9th. It's slipped a notch since then, but the FOC era editions had nowhere near the roleplay potential of 9th or 10th, as I just described above.

Did all your troops die in a game, and you got no supply lines to get more? I guess you just have to give up and surrender, because Ultramarines will only ever deploy if they can bring two units of troops. Seriously dude. That's the system you're saying has more roleplay potential.

The campaign rules existed all throughout the 3-7 era. The current crusade model isn't new. Crusade is also not the simulation i was referring to. It's great you can tell a story with your army, but if you army itself is composed of rules that are now only loosely associated with the army in the setting, you're just telling a story with checker pieces. It might be a great story, but its still not with the setting you're supposed to be playing in.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

Whether a 3rd ed FoC is suitable or not, some form of army structure should exist in the game or you're not really playing 40k. I saw someone mention E:A and I would endorse that too - each army has its own FoC structure that is balanced against what that army can deploy, while also showing how that army actually fights.

How that army actually fights based on what? White Scars love their bikes, but if I Kill them all in one battle, what DO they do in the next?

Well as you've pointed out, they don't always die between battles. And the setting has rarely had any army get so badly destroyed they can't deploy that aspect. The white scars have avoided losing all their bikes in 10,000 years, or they have a big factory churning out replacements faster than they need them.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

No military leader in 40k has the freedom to deploy an army in the way a 40k player can, nor the strategic inclination to do so.

I beg your pardon, an Inquisitor has the freedom to do whatever they hell they want unless another Inquisitor says they can't, and if you disagree, it's only a matter of time until you disappear.

Freedom is more than just personal power. If the closest grey hunters, allarus dreadnought, culexus, ratlings and knights are more than a month away, no amount of ultimate power is going to get you your unique snowflake bespoke army.

To reference the white scars - their bikes are being replaced/repaired. The 15 captain kill team all got wiped and you can't call on any captains for a while. The reality of logistics, tactics and traditions mean that the army is far more constrained in its deployment than it is to the player. Assembling an army isn't a collection of datasheets you throw down and the force teleports in ready to go.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

Any truly unusual force comp would be a highly specific scenario from a very particular set of circumstances - which would be built into the scenario you play.

Now who's dealing in abstractions? If an army is flexible enough to adjust its composition to accommodate for battlefield scenarios, why isn't that flexibility represented in the organizational capacity of the army and instead connected to the battle and not the army at all?

I was referring to highly unusual scenarios like a depot raid where its just techmarines, hammerfall bunkers and rhinos and servitors. A specific scenario with specific force. It's not an actively recruited and deployed force, but a snapshot of specific units in a single place at one time that happen to get into a battle in a way they wouldn't normally deploy to do so.

As for the other comment, because that's not how armies work. And in 40k (and the imperium especially) reason and 21st century wargamer logic don't control how and why armies are formed or what they do when they are. Tradition, dogma, circumstance, logistics and training are what dictate it. Applying our sensibilities to the army is exactly the abstraction that's the problem. You should take on the persona of the army, limitations and all.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, for IG at least, they have mono-unit companies.
For example, a tank company isn’t mixed with infantry.

Multiple companies are USUALLY deployed together… but not always.

In Epic the typical IG formation looks like a company mixed with integrated support units as well as a support detatchment or two. So it can be a Company of Infantry, mechanized or not, with a Squadron of Russes, maybe a Hellhound or few, or Hydra, or Ogryns . . . and some of those (like the Tanks) my just be Squadrons from a different company. The whole thing can look suspiciously like a FoC 40K army. Tank Companies can mix with infantry, and vice versa. The official organization of all those assets might be mono-company, but they way they get used often breaks them all up into combined arms formations.