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.

 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.

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.

I understand what you are saying, but the FOC never really achieved that. In the end it was just as abstract of a mechanic as the Ro3 is, but was just cosplaying as in-game military structure - much like stratagems pretend to be an in-universe thing when they really are not. Even for highly structured armies like the guard, there never was a lore reason for a commander not be able to deploy a hydra to defend his position from aircraft just because there were exactly three times two guys with mortars in the same regiment. For less organized armies like chaos and xenos, it often directly contradicted the fluff and forced you into playing unfluffy armies.

The best shot at the simulationist approach was the dreaded decurions, which tried to give each army their own command structure to follow and wanted to rewarded you for doing that. If failed spectacularly in 7th, but from what I've read, a very similar approach seems to work just fine in AoS and 30k. Unlike with the FoC, I do not believe that this approach cannot work. However, looking at the current state of the game, I also don't think it would actually add anything?
As shown earlier in this thread, even the most competitive people are already following army structures which look a lot like armies taken straight out of novels and codex fluff. This is due to implicit restrictions given to your army through mission design, unit abilities, defensive profiles and the rule of 3. I don't think writing explicit limitations would make the game better or worse - just more complex.

There is no Fast Attack anymore, but you see fast or infiltrating/deep striking units in almost every army, because you need fast vanguards and flanking units to capture and defend objectives.
There is no Heavy Support anymore, but you need to bring some powerful guns that can punch through your opponent's durable units, be it vehicles, monsters or elite infantry.
There is no elite anymore, good riddance But seriously, elite has - implicitly - split into heavy, medium and light infantry and the game has become better for it. Gravis and TEQ really have different feel to them than nobz, genestealers or marines, which also feel distinct from aspect warriors, boyz or yaegirs.
The concept of troops has separate into the OC, battleline and simply cheap bodies(gretchin. pox walkers, scouts). Any unit can be good at holding objectives now, without automatically allowing you to have infinite amounts of them. And you need those objective holding units, because otherwise one of those pesky not-fast attack units will steal your home objectives despite a transport or an artillery unit being parked on it.

So the idea of battle roles hasn't been lost to the game you play, but is just no longer explicitly written down anymore. It also doesn't artificially restrict a unit to single role when it's both fast and heavy support or an elite unit that is supposed to grab objectives.

All the horror scenarios of people spamming unfun lists in this thread which require restriction through the FoC are completely made up scenarios which simply do not happen in real games.
Even if yo do run into someone running a 12 LR list, it's an automatic win for you because they have literally no chance of winning the game.
The most realistic scenario here is someone bringing 6 predators, which blood angels were able for as long as I can think. I also fail to see how 6 predators are somehow a problem while a combination 3 balistus dreads, 3 hamemrstrike speeders and 3 gladiator valliants is not, despite being more or less the same type of unit.

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.

I do not disagree with you opinion, but want to point out that not every battle is fought by deploying a fresh organizational structure directly from orbit.

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.

Can you give an example of such an army that's build to win a battle and not as a joke?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PenitentJake wrote:
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.

YES. This, so many times.
It's MY dudes. Not GW's dudes. I want to bring a morkanaut and a gorkanaut and two dreads and three units of killa kanz. And I want them to be lead by big meks and there should be lootas and gretchin all over the places. And if I feel like it, I should also be able to bring a stompa. You know, exactly like the 40+ pages of fluff in the GW published book that coined the name "dreadmob" described such an army to look like. The FOC is a tool made to literally prevent such armies.

There have been other FOCs.

Whilst not 40K, the third take on Realms of Chaos (5th or 6th Ed WHFB) leaned into the Warband feel. You picked a character, and tooled them up. You then need to buy units at least equal to the character’s cost as their personal warband. Points left over? Rinse and repeat.

2nd Ed Imperial Guard? Buying an infantry squad allowed a support unit (Russ, Ogryns etc) to be added.

Both worked quite differently from their contemporaries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Have got the relevant books at home, but currently in the salon getting me roots done. Will give a more in-depth and accurate description once I’m home.

Honestly, I believe the death of the FoC can be laid at the feet of those who complained that they couldn't play with all the cool toys talked about in the Warhammer fluff or codecies.

And I understand that outlook.

You had to create so many FoC breaking rules in the previous editions to make it work.

Who wouldn't want to replicate Shrike and his all jump pack forces, Imperial Guard Artillery Companies, or the Deathwing / Ravenwing Combos?

It was fun and different than the standard block of tactical meh-rines that we were all used to seeing in every frigging game.

But that constant break from the FoC, probably is what made the Company say, "Every codex has at least one way of ignoring this thing, why are we still using it?"

Plus, you had the last gasp of the FoC in 9th, when it was various FoCs that just overcomplicated army building, especially for new players.

I remember trying to explain army building and CPs to starting players, while trying to wedge in the models they had bought. Eventually we would just ignore the FoC and play with what we had.

Our house rules essentially became 10th edition. The rule of 3/6 while arbitrary, does for the most part work.

The original FOC suited Marines quite nicely, as it allowed you field a full Battle Company (6 Tactical, 2 Assault, 2 Devastator), and still have space left for some support elements. Also one Captain, and a support staff like a Chaplain.

Outside of that? Less so.

Had they offered a separate “fluffy” FOC for each army it could’ve worked I guess. Hard to say, as a nice idea doesn’t mean nice execution.

Traditionally a big part of the problem also had to do with the Troop Tax. The game had this weird divide where "Elite" armies spent way more on Troops and ended up having less "Elite" stuff than armies that could cheaply pay their taxes and get straight to the good stuff.

I also think, as big as 40k armies are, they're not really big enough to capture the scale people think of when they imagine a FOC compliant army. I think what exists in most people's minds are something closer to Epic/Armaggedon and in 10th terms, would be accomplished by 3 separate detachments in the 1-2k point range each.

 LunarSol wrote:
Traditionally a big part of the problem also had to do with the Troop Tax.

I think this is part of the issue. The debate sometimes gets framed as "fluff" vs "competitive".
But really its "I like these models" vs "fluff".

Its entirely possible for example to look at the Space Marine range, and think "I like Terminators and Dreadnoughts, I want an army of Terminators and Dreadnoughts". Whether Deathwing or otherwise.
If you get told "at a minimum you need to take 2 naked Scout squads to be FOC compliant" you might think... why? That's lame. I just like Terminators and Dreadnoughts, why would I want these skinny children Marines running around?
By contrast a competitive player likely just shrugs. Certainly in 10th Scouts would add some functionality to the list and aren't therefore necessarily a bad idea.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

Who wouldn't want to replicate Shrike and his all jump pack forces, Imperial Guard Artillery Companies, or the Deathwing / Ravenwing Combos?

It was fun and different than the standard block of tactical meh-rines that we were all used to seeing in every frigging game.

But that constant break from the FoC, probably is what made the Company say, "Every codex has at least one way of ignoring this thing, why are we still using it?"

Soooo. . . . about that. If you wanted to make a Marine Bike focused army these days, how would you do it? Because I remember the days when an an entire army of bikes could be fielded, and it's a list that showed up in tournaments from time to time. Afaik, at the moment you can take three Bike squads for 18 models total, plus a chaplain on a bike? Something like that.

Another example of the new not-so-freedom we have these days is (again, last I checked) the fact that you can only take six Imperial Guard Infantry Squads, and to take more than 60 you have to glom them up in larger-than-ten squads, even though the actual organization of the IG has always been in blocks of ten.

Any my personal gripe effecting an army I actually play, is that I can only take three squads of Tyranid Warriors with ranged weapons, and those are now limited to six models per squad, 18 models. (They used to come in squads of up to 9), were sometimes troops, and were sometimes Elites AND HQ.

Another one is maxxing on (lascannon) Land Raiders at three, when before you could take them as Transports for Terminators and thus didn't count against your Heavy Support choices.

I totally get the desire of "bring whatever you want!", but to me there are some instances of limitations just moving around.

Well that's why you take the Warrior detachment that makes them battleline.

 Tyran wrote:
Well that's why you take the Warrior detachment that makes them battleline.

Ahh, ok. . .
So can we recognize that that's the same thing as the old paradigm including ways to modify the FOC?

(also, that's still just 36 ranged Warriors) I was taking like, 60 in 8th, and could take 45 in 4th.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Honestly, I believe the death of the FoC can be laid at the feet of those who complained that they couldn't play with all the cool toys talked about in the Warhammer fluff or codecies

Nah. It was another victim of GW making the rules 'accessible' ie. short. Same reason they cut out vehicle armour, morale etc.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Honestly, I believe the death of the FoC can be laid at the feet of those who complained that they couldn't play with all the cool toys talked about in the Warhammer fluff or codecies

Nah. It was another victim of GW making the rules 'accessible' ie. short. Same reason they cut out vehicle armour, morale etc.

I'm mostly in this camp.

It sorta falls under the "adding numbers for wargear is just too complicated, uuughhh" realm.

 Insectum7 wrote:

So can we recognize that that's the same thing as the old paradigm including ways to modify the FOC?

(also, that's still just 36 ranged Warriors) I was taking like, 60 in 8th, and could take 45 in 4th.

If you argument here is that the rule of 3 is flawed, I agree and personally I don't believe we need it anymore.

What most of us want is a rules system that has some sense of stability. 3 year cycles that shake everything up are a pain in the neck. Esp when GW is clearly well into a system of change for the sake of change alone or constantly shifting the goal posts of who their target audience is.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

So can we recognize that that's the same thing as the old paradigm including ways to modify the FOC?

(also, that's still just 36 ranged Warriors) I was taking like, 60 in 8th, and could take 45 in 4th.

If you argument here is that the rule of 3 is flawed, I agree and personally I don't believe we need it anymore.

That's certainly part of my argument, yeah. Most of the gist is that many of the criticisms against FOC can be levelled at Ro3.

I think army building limitations are reasonable, implementation is always the issue.

That said it would sure be interesting to see what would happen if they were abandoned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
What most of us want is a rules system that has some sense of stability. 3 year cycles that shake everything up are a pain in the neck. Esp when GW is clearly well into a system of change for the sake of change alone or constantly shifting the goal posts of who their target audience is.

I can certainly agree with a desire for stability.

I think their goal posts haven't changed. They consistently want new players because they spend more, faster.

If FoC or the Ro3 isn't the answer, what is?

Should we just accept the 8th Edition's Open Play, where you select a point total and bring everything you want that fits in that point total?

So you can field your 7 Samurai style- Farsight and the Nine list you've always wanted to play?

There is probably no perfect answer, all will have downsides in concept and/or implementation.

Considering the current state of the game, RO3 is probably decent enough to get the job done and I have little apetite for redesigning the whole thing.

Ultimately I agree with Overread, I vastly prefer stability even if it means accepting some poorly implemented rules. Which is why I hope 11th is mostly a continuation of 10th rather than another overhaul.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
If FoC or the Ro3 isn't the answer, what is?

Should we just accept the 8th Edition's Open Play, where you select a point total and bring everything you want that fits in that point total?

So you can field your 7 Samurai style- Farsight and the Nine list you've always wanted to play?

I'll give two answers:
Ideal solution 1: No limitatioms on what you can bring, but the "soft mechanics" naturally incentivise healthy mixes of units. I just don't know how realistic that is.

Ideal Solution 2: Flexible faction specific force orgs. Imo this is actually more flavorful because they should be reinforcing faction "ideals".

Again, my favourite implementation was 9th. Detachments WERE FOC's, but there was a variety of them you could choose from, AND you could use multiple detachments in a single army AND that could also be a way to add allies.

I prefer 9th to 8th, because in 8th you were awarded command points for detachments, so people chose organizational structure based on a desire for command points rather than how well that structure reflected the character of the army they wanted to field.

Even then, it wasn't perfect: you could only deduct the detachment's CP cost for including the Warlord if the detachment in question was a patrol, a Battalion or a Brigade, and GW created purity rules to discourage allying when fixing 8th's CP for Detachments on its own was enough to solve the problem.

But it was still my personal favourite way to organize armies, and it provided my with a lot of narrative hooks that current mono detachment armies don't.

The loss of allies (outside of a few specific cases like Agents of the Imperium/Chaos and Knights) was to avoid the workload necessary to avoid unintended synergies that made taking allies better than playing your army.

The Design Studio just doesn't have the time to make sure that taking your own armies tanks isn't overtaken by the value of taking an allied tank. This is doubly true since they tend to target Inter-Codex balance before they target Intra-Codex Balance.

And this is all fine and good in a Competative Environment. In a Narrative Environment, you and your opponent are free to allow Allies and make rules to cover them. No reason you can't both play a 1500 Point Army Allied to a 500 Point Army with homebrew rules to cover Detachments, Command Points, and Warlords.

 Jidmah wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but the FOC never really achieved that. In the end it was just as abstract of a mechanic as the Ro3 is, but was just cosplaying as in-game military structure - much like stratagems pretend to be an in-universe thing when they really are not. Even for highly structured armies like the guard, there never was a lore reason for a commander not be able to deploy a hydra to defend his position from aircraft just because there were exactly three times two guys with mortars in the same regiment. For less organized armies like chaos and xenos, it often directly contradicted the fluff and forced you into playing unfluffy armies.

Yeah I don't play the Ultramarines 4th Company or the Cadian 59th Infantry Regiment or whatever. My small-time warboss from a backwater system probably has millions of orks following him. Excluding special characters he could easily field literally any legal 3000 point Ork army, and might decide to do so on a whim. Not that I actually have 10 battlewagon models myself, but my warboss would definitely have hundreds. And that's some petty no-name Waagh, 40k allows players to field Ghaz and Creed and Magnus the Red who command forces bigger by orders of magnitude.

Now granted the Ro3 doesn't let me field 10 battlewagons either, but I understand that it's purely a list-building restriction same as the point limit. It doesn't bother me to be told that I'm not allowed to have a force twice as strong as my opponent's, even though there's no fluff reason why it couldn't be. But I do get annoyed when the list-building restriction gets coated in some BS about how it's not "realistic" for my ork army to break Roboutte Guilliman's Codex Astartes organization chart. (A chart that is apparently so constrained that even the other space marines refuse to abide by it, as proven by all the special exemptions their chapters are given.) When it is completely feasible and in-character for orks to field entire 40k armies of walkers or tanks or bikes, according to every other source in the game besides the FOC.

If you really want to preserve fluffiness, make FOCs only apply to armies lead by special characters who cannonically lead armies that obey FOC. If you take Marneus Calgar then you cannot make your army all terminators, because that's not how he would do things. But why can't the Hypermarines take all terminators? Their fluff says they do, because it's my made-up chapter. It has already been decided that it isn't unbalanced mechanically, because Deathwing are allowed to be an army. Terminator armor is rare but hardly to the point where fielding 50 suits of it is impossible for a chapter that's existed for thousands of years, and again Deathwing proves that it's strategically viable. Special characters shouldn't unlock options, they should lock them, because if you're not using a special character then your commander's resources and strategies can be whatever you want them to be.

 alextroy wrote:
In a Narrative Environment, you and your opponent are free to allow Allies and make rules to cover them. No reason you can't both play a 1500 Point Army Allied to a 500 Point Army with homebrew rules to cover Detachments, Command Points, and Warlords.

True. But it's also true that for whatever reason, in 9th, you didn't have to make up rules to do it, because the core system facilitated it.

Not that it would be hard to house rule allies using 10th ed rules. In 9th, we all had 40 or so strats and 10 or more enhancements available to us- some folks complained that was too much, but it never felt that way to me.

So if I played a 2k Imperial Army that was 1000 points of Sisters and 1000 points of guard, that gives me 12 strats and 8 enhancements. That's less than half of what was available to even a monofaction army in 9th- certainly not a brain breaker. In fact, if I wanted to, I could even build a 2100 point army with 700 Sisters, 700 Guard and 700 Marines, that's still only 18 strats and 12 enhancements... And again, not rocket science.

I think there were ally rules in one of the WD mission packs, but I can't find it right now.

Essentially, you have to pick a main faction and the other factions just don't get detachment rules or stratagems. In addition, they are treated as enemy units that you can't attack or charge, so don't stand too close to those allied death guard.