PDA

View Full Version : FOC to be



murgel2006
08-03-2014, 20:00
Hi all.
I have read a post in another thread about the FOC and what may happen to it, especially the LoW slot...

So I feel it might be a point of interest what you all expect or hope for...

Will there be new missions with FOC alterations like in 4th ed.?
Are we going to see the standard FOC including LoW and/or Spearhead? etc.

What do you think?

Beppo1234
08-03-2014, 21:05
does it really need to get more flexible? The gw rule of thumb has been for 2000+ 2 FOC, 4000+ 3 FOC etc. With Lord of War now accounted in that point cost though escalation, it's not gonna be hard to break 2000, and open up a whole new FOC worth of options, including a second LoW detachment, allied detachment, basically a whole other army.

AndrewGPaul
08-03-2014, 21:23
I'd like to see each army potentially having its own "standard FOC", as well as more missions using a variation of it. 3rd edition 40k had several different categories of missions using different and asymmetric charts. My assumption is that the rise of the tournament scene and non-prearranged gaming did away with that.

MajorWesJanson
08-03-2014, 21:26
I would like to see the FOC hardened a bit. Give auxillary detachments, like datasheets, codex knights, codex inquisition, their own slot, you get one per Foc, do not have to be the same for multiple FOcs. Make the Lord of war slot only at 2000 points or above. Remove ability for battle brothers to join allied units. Make the allied chart asymmetric, rather than mirrored.

Spiney Norman
08-03-2014, 22:28
It needs to be totally redesigned from the ground up, ditch the current slot system and move to percentages

HQ up to 25%
Elite up to 25%
Core 25% minimum requirement
Fast attack up to 25%
Heavy support up to 25%
Fortification (one network max) up to 25%
Lord of War up to 25% (only in games of more than 2000 pts)
Allies up to 25%

Other than core units and dedicated transports no unit may be taken more than twice up to 2k and four times above 2k.

That scales much better than the current derpy system of doubling your slots at 2k, if I had my way the only way to take knights would be to have them as an allied det as the primary det is just game-breaking, but I guess there's not much we can do about that now.

wyvirn
08-03-2014, 22:58
I would like to see a modular FOC, for example a recon chart for 200-1000, lightning raid chart from 750-1500, and a standard chart for 1250-2000. Anything beyond that is full scale war (double FOC or Apoc).

dangerboyjim
08-03-2014, 23:01
If GW change it, the most likely change is remove it. They seem to want random model collections instead of themed, balanced forces on the table.

I like the percentage suggestion, don't know about not allowing users to take more than two of one unit. I can see that having some unintended consequences.

How about look at this from another point of view, scrap the FOC, just say 40K is now apocalypse, I doubt anyone would notice. And release a rogue trader like game for 40k models, focussing on skirmish battles, bring down the squad sizes, limit the appearance of vehicles and anything with more than 2 wounds, and I mean limit, not ban.

That way there's a fun, balanced game to play, but there's still a place for Knights, Riptides, etc.

murgel2006
08-03-2014, 23:44
I would like to see a modular FOC, for example a recon chart for 200-1000, lightning raid chart from 750-1500, and a standard chart for 1250-2000. Anything beyond that is full scale war (double FOC or Apoc).

As I have been lucky enough to play some campaigns, I can speak about this approach from personal experience. This is a fantastic approach which makes for very interesting games. And for some fun small vs. large list scenarios.


It needs to be totally redesigned from the ground up, ditch the current slot system and move to percentages

HQ up to 25%
Elite up to 25%
Core 25% minimum requirement
Fast attack up to 25%
Heavy support up to 25%
Fortification (one network max) up to 25%
Lord of War up to 25% (only in games of more than 2000 pts)
Allies up to 25%

Other than core units and dedicated transports no unit may be taken more than twice up to 2k and four times above 2k.

That scales much better than the current derpy system of doubling your slots at 2k, if I had my way the only way to take knights would be to have them as an allied det as the primary det is just game-breaking, but I guess there's not much we can do about that now.

So something alike 2nd ed. Which we here love still.


If GW change it, the most likely change is remove it. They seem to want random model collections instead of themed, balanced forces on the table.

I like the percentage suggestion, don't know about not allowing users to take more than two of one unit. I can see that having some unintended consequences.

How about look at this from another point of view, scrap the FOC, just say 40K is now apocalypse, I doubt anyone would notice. And release a rogue trader like game for 40k models, focussing on skirmish battles, bring down the squad sizes, limit the appearance of vehicles and anything with more than 2 wounds, and I mean limit, not ban.

That way there's a fun, balanced game to play, but there's still a place for Knights, Riptides, etc.

Another thing we have done around here, play with Apoc rules in smaller games. IMO it works quite nicely for 1k+ points, below that combat patrol and clash of heroes works better.

I could live with all the ideas so far and could live very good with them.

Spiney Norman
08-03-2014, 23:52
How about look at this from another point of view, scrap the FOC, just say 40K is now apocalypse


I can actually see that happening sadly, you can already build pretty large, competitive armies without involving the FOC at all (just saw a list in the AL subforum with 3 Imperial knights (primary) with an inquisition detachment and allied Astartes stormwing dataslate).

duffybear1988
09-03-2014, 00:19
I don't see the point of the stormwing dataslate when the tyranid hunter one offers more utility.

Losing Command
09-03-2014, 00:26
Yeah, with all the things that completely ignore the FOC already I don't see how a chance to the FOC can influence anything but the players that still adhere to building armies the old fashioned way.

ehlijen
09-03-2014, 00:38
Where is the 'make it more strict' option in the poll?

Because it's been watered down way too much.

Allies should not grant additional slots, they should use slots from the normal allotment.
FO slot muting abilities need to go or be severely reduced. The game rules are written around the assumption of infantry fighting infantry and runs into problems for anything else. If that is to be the focus and core of the game, most armies should facilitate this happening a lot.
Slot numbers need to scale more smoothly with game size. The standard as we have it right now is about right for 1.5k to 2k, but a bit too open below that and the doubling at 2k makes it meaningless (and after that comes apoc, where it's not even used).
The nature of units and the slots should be reconsidered. I think air units are different enough that if they are to stay, they should get their own slot type. But also, units that use multiple different slots should be considered as a system.
For example: a valkyrie is an air unit and a transport unit. It might take an air and a fast slot. A vulture is an air attack unit, it might take an air and a heavy slot. (This might need an increase in slot numbers to work, but I think it could make the system more interesting if nothing else).

Charistoph
09-03-2014, 03:38
Where is the 'make it more strict' option in the poll?

I'm in half agreement with this. The Allied Detachment is perfectly fine as is, imo. The real problem is when someone can take a single model and then fill up the rest of the army with nothing but exotic Detachments and Formations, and still have enough points used to double the FOC.

Formations and Dataslate Characters should take up a specific Slot in the Primary FOC as a minimum. Lords of War should be available when you have 2 Primary Detachments. Things like that.

agurus1
09-03-2014, 06:55
Honestly I think that going with a percentage system and restricting how Formations and Lords of War interact with the new system should be implemented. I think that a 25% across the board rule with Allies using up percentages of those sections is a good idea. Possibly even restricting Formations to being less that 25% would be a good idea.

So something like:

HQ: up to 25% (one choice may be from an allied contingent, but may not exceed half %)

Elites: up to 25% (one choice may be from an allied contingent, but may not exceed half %)

Troops: 25% minimum (two choices may be from an allied contingent, but may not exceed half %)

Fast Attack: up to 25% (one choice may be from an allied contingent, but may not exceed half %)

Heavy Support: up to 25% (one choice may be from an allied contingent, but may not exceed half %)

Lords of War: up to 25% and can only be taken in games that exceed 2000 points

Fortifications: up to 25%

Formations: take up part of the % from each section (Elites, Troops, ect...) that the models use from their corresponding codex. Total points spent on formations cannot exceed 25%

MadHatter
09-03-2014, 07:21
I would love to see the percentage system return. It makes more sense to me with the way its going. And to be honest I have always preferred it over the FoC.

this works for me.


HQ: up to 25% (one choice may be from an allied contingent, but may not exceed half %)

Elites: up to 25% (one choice may be from an allied contingent, but may not exceed half %)

Troops: 25% minimum (two choices may be from an allied contingent, but may not exceed half %)

Fast Attack: up to 25% (one choice may be from an allied contingent, but may not exceed half %)

Heavy Support: up to 25% (one choice may be from an allied contingent, but may not exceed half %)

Lords of War: up to 25% and can only be taken in games that exceed 2000 points

Fortifications: up to 25%

Formations: take up part of the % from each section (Elites, Troops, ect...) that the models use from their corresponding codex. Total points spent on formations cannot exceed 25%

Tarax
09-03-2014, 09:48
It needs to be totally redesigned from the ground up, ditch the current slot system and move to percentages

While I agree with the intent, I disagree with the execution. Percentages or slots to me are interchangeable, but the biggest issue lies with all the supplements. You should be able to play a game with the FOC from earlier editions, ie the basic HQ, Troops, Elite, Heavy and Fast options. Fortifications, Lords of War and Allies should be agreed upon with your opponent.

Different FOCs for different armies, as someone else mentioned, is not necessary when the appropriate units are in the right slots. Also, the nature of the army decides which units it will have.

Different FOCs depending on the scenario played, will not work for pick-up games. You can only do that if you decide beforehand which scenario you want to play. This works with Planet Strike or Cities of Death etc but not every time.

AndrewGPaul
09-03-2014, 15:46
If you're playing a pick-up game, then you just use the "standard" FOC - whatever that happens to be. If you're arranging a game in advance, then you can have an attacker/defender split or whatever. Or just have three variants on the same army list, bring all the models for that (a couple of units different, I would think) and then determine the scenario when you arrive. Not an unsurmountable problem.

As for different FOCs for different armies, the FOC is clearly based around a Space Marine Battle Company organisation; Six Tactical Squads, two Assault Squads, two Devastator Squads, a Captain, Chaplain, Dreadnought and attached support from the reserves. :) A variant FOC for the Guard, for example, could mean that you don't need to crowbar an "HQ", up to six "Troops", five "Heavy Support" and two "Elite" units into a single Troops choice. YMMV, but I always found that a bit of a kludge.

Dwane Diblie
09-03-2014, 16:03
I have had this feeling for a while now that Allies integration is going to change and be way more open than it currently is. Something like:
- You can take models from any 40k supplement.
- One army must be declared your main force.
- Some form of percentage system for unit types as we know them now.
- A HQ must be taken from your main force, but that is all that is compulsory.
- Unlimited Battle Brother choices can be taken based on your main force.
- A percentage of your total points may be spent on Allies of Convenience.
- A smaller percentage may be spent on Desperate Allies.
- Neither of these two interfere with each other.

This effectively fits what has been happening recently. Not necessarily something I am interested in though.

Scammel
09-03-2014, 16:07
The FOC isn't too bad as it stands, though as Spiney suggests some percentages might be helpful. The issue is more the vast number of ways particular armies can make it null and void (allies are a major offender here).

Vipoid
09-03-2014, 18:32
Where is the 'make it more strict' option in the poll?

That was my thought too.

Slayer-Fan123
09-03-2014, 18:48
The people suggesting percentages are insane. It stifles creativity, not help it. It also doesn't actually stop spam for certain armies.

Kingly
09-03-2014, 18:53
It kind of does Slayer.

Ive been playing Fantasy for 30+ games now and i have to say choosing 25% core can be a real head scratcher.

My mate brought 6 henchmen as his core allotment to a game on Friday...6 basic men thats his core, come on thats mental...

As an High Elf and Empire player my Core minimum spends can be a real hinderance but in a really really good way.

When there is at least 25% of the opponents army thats going to get smashed by your elites it gives a much deeper experience in tactics.

Scammel
09-03-2014, 18:55
The people suggesting percentages are insane. It stifles creativity, not help it. It also doesn't actually stop spam for certain armies.

It begs the question as to why Fantasy sees very little spam and why there exists a large variety of both solid books and units in that system. It also results in the game of fantasy battles looking like a game of fantasy battles, not Warhammer: Robots in Disguise.

Lord Damocles
09-03-2014, 19:05
My mate brought 6 henchmen as his core allotment to a game on Friday...6 basic men thats his core, come on thats mental...
...ly easy to wipe out his scoring units :yes:

Vipoid
09-03-2014, 20:10
To those suggesting percentages, would you also have unit caps like in fantasy? (Where you can't have more than 3 of the same special choice, or more than 2 of the same rare choice.)

Spiney Norman
09-03-2014, 20:21
To those suggesting percentages, would you also have unit caps like in fantasy? (Where you can't have more than 3 of the same special choice, or more than 2 of the same rare choice.)

Yes, I would cap everything at max of 2 except for troop units and dedicated transports, that would include units brought in via alternative means such as dataslates (so no maxing out on riptides then adding more through the fire support cadre). Vehicles that can be taken in squadrons could be taken as up to two full squadrons.

Vipoid
09-03-2014, 20:22
Yes, I would cap everything at max of 2 except for troop units and dedicated transports, that would include units brought in via alternative means such as dataslates (so no maxing out on riptides then adding more through the fire support cadre). Vehicles that can be taken in squadrons could be taken as up to two full squadrons.

I could get behind that.

Spiney Norman
09-03-2014, 20:30
I could get behind that.

Forgot to add that I would relax the limit (more likely double it) for larger games, say 3k and above

Slayer-Fan123
09-03-2014, 20:58
Yes, I would cap everything at max of 2 except for troop units and dedicated transports, that would include units brought in via alternative means such as dataslates (so no maxing out on riptides then adding more through the fire support cadre). Vehicles that can be taken in squadrons could be taken as up to two full squadrons.
Why would you cap everything at two though? It's asinine. If I want to run three Vindicators I should be allowed to, and if I want to spend my Fast Attack options all on Bikers, why should I be stopped because you're afraid of outside spam? The issue is internal balance, not the FOC.

agurus1
10-03-2014, 00:08
Why would you cap everything at two though? It's asinine. If I want to run three Vindicators I should be allowed to, and if I want to spend my Fast Attack options all on Bikers, why should I be stopped because you're afraid of outside spam? The issue is internal balance, not the FOC.

Your mentality is still thinking about things as slots though. You could probably have 2 maxed bike squads that fill up 25% of your list. As for 3 Vindicators. Might have to start playing bigger games to use them!

MadHatter
10-03-2014, 00:46
i would say no on maximum unit types with a percentage usage. If you want to use 3 vindicators and burn up your 25% of point on them, by all means that is the individual players right. if you play higher point games you get more points for that particular categories. and the reverse if you play lower point games.

ehlijen
10-03-2014, 01:04
The people suggesting percentages are insane. It stifles creativity, not help it. It also doesn't actually stop spam for certain armies.

It's not about stopping spam as such, it's about preventing concentrations of force that break the game.

Take the example where 10 soldiers with 10 hitpoints each stand in a line firing 1 damage guns at an identical line on the other side.
If each soldier shoots a different target, whoever goes first wins. If one side concentrates all fire on one target at a time but the other doesn't, it will always win. This victory however depends on being able to concentrate fire better than the opponent, and that's where tactics and player skill come in.
But what if one side could trade their 10 soldiers for one tank with 100hp and a 10 damage gun? Such a tank can't possibly lose to the 10 soldiers even though both sides have the same total HP and the same damage output to start with.

Extreme example, of course, if nothing else because there are no random numbers involved, but the principle stands.

That's what the FO chart and a percentage system would be there to prevent. They are meant to keep force concentration at a level that still allows for meaningful tactical interaction (how successful the FO chart is at that is debatable, but that's what it's for).

If you can only put 25% of your force into heavy support units, you can still take lot's of cheap ones, but, assuming a working points system, you will still only have concentrated 25% of your force into long range heavy fire units.

It doesn't matter if that's 15 long fangs or 1 land raider, if you spent the same points on it, it will roughly have the same potential. Any difference will only become an advantage through proper use of the units in game.

That'd be an ideal system, which 40k is not (though it used to be worse).

I don't think percentages would be the best solution, but I do think they'd be better than an FO chart that doesn't change to suit the points level (and is undermined at all corners by special character abilities).

agurus1
10-03-2014, 01:28
I think it will be easier to reel in Formation and Lords of War abuse via a % system than the current one, merry by fixing how much % of and army such choices can take up. The other example of the 6 henchmen as an army's troop choices is extreme but it's perfectly viable. Creating armies that look like armies on the table top will be easier managed by ensuring only certain % of the overall points are allowed in each section (HQ, Elites, ect...). Could still manipulate this maybe by taking characters that change the percentages or move certain units to other sections (Example: DA special character moves Terminators from Elites to Troops, minimum 25% of your army must still be troops so can create a themed army yay!)

Slayer-Fan123
10-03-2014, 03:00
It's not about stopping spam as such, it's about preventing concentrations of force that break the game.

Take the example where 10 soldiers with 10 hitpoints each stand in a line firing 1 damage guns at an identical line on the other side.
If each soldier shoots a different target, whoever goes first wins. If one side concentrates all fire on one target at a time but the other doesn't, it will always win. This victory however depends on being able to concentrate fire better than the opponent, and that's where tactics and player skill come in.
But what if one side could trade their 10 soldiers for one tank with 100hp and a 10 damage gun? Such a tank can't possibly lose to the 10 soldiers even though both sides have the same total HP and the same damage output to start with.

Extreme example, of course, if nothing else because there are no random numbers involved, but the principle stands.

That's what the FO chart and a percentage system would be there to prevent. They are meant to keep force concentration at a level that still allows for meaningful tactical interaction (how successful the FO chart is at that is debatable, but that's what it's for).

If you can only put 25% of your force into heavy support units, you can still take lot's of cheap ones, but, assuming a working points system, you will still only have concentrated 25% of your force into long range heavy fire units.

It doesn't matter if that's 15 long fangs or 1 land raider, if you spent the same points on it, it will roughly have the same potential. Any difference will only become an advantage through proper use of the units in game.

That'd be an ideal system, which 40k is not (though it used to be worse).

I don't think percentages would be the best solution, but I do think they'd be better than an FO chart that doesn't change to suit the points level (and is undermined at all corners by special character abilities).
Okay, but why should I be stopped from using 3 Land Raiders in a 1500 point game? It's my point sink and my right to sink them there. That's what it's all about in this game. Doing a percentage thing is retarded and stops me from using 10 Deathmarks and 20 Flayed Ones in a 1000 point game in a list I made just because you guys want to stop Riptide spam.

As I said, the issue is internal balance within codices in the first place. My Elite slots I just named aren't exactly cheesy in any way, so why should I be stopped from using it as such in a low point game?

agurus1
10-03-2014, 04:36
Because honestly that's how restrictions work. If you can't fit 3 land raiders in a 1500 point game using a percentage system that's probably a good thing. If you want 3 land raider games just play a 2000 point game, easy solution and might make it easier for your opponent to handle your army.

As for your Necron example, you (and 40k players in general ever since the FOC was created) have been spoiled by the fact that you can fit in these large elite formations into small points games with very little Troops. It's totally just a mindset thing. Obviously smaller games will be more troops heavy, that's not a bad thing. It just means that you can only bring out tons of bling in higher points games, and even so will still need that base of 25% troops no matter what. I fail to see how these are bad things? Especially because it will cause newer players to start looking at creating armies differently, not having to rely so hard on elite units and building a solid core before moving on to the other bits.

Commissar Merces
10-03-2014, 04:45
We need a % based system like fantasy. Nuff said.

Langdon
10-03-2014, 04:54
It needs a way to limit spam-able lists.

Putting a hard cap on how many duplicates you can take past the original.

change it to:

per 2k pts

1(upto 2) HQ, 2 (upto 6) Troops mandatory (or the 3+ for the Knights) Primary Detachment
0-3 Elites
0-3 FA
0-3 HS

1 optional Ally (1 HQ, 1-2 Troop, 0-1 E/FA/HS)
1 Dataslate/Supplement
1 LoW

maximum of 2 unique models (including things that can buy 1+ to their model, ie Lone Wolves, Riptides, Broadsides). Maximum of 1 Squadron (in the case of ValkDettas and Lemon Russ', Brood of Nids etc)

Units that become troops/scoring instead of their usual slots maximum of 3 per 2k, unless other restrictions already apply.

Slayer-Fan123
10-03-2014, 06:04
Because honestly that's how restrictions work. If you can't fit 3 land raiders in a 1500 point game using a percentage system that's probably a good thing. If you want 3 land raider games just play a 2000 point game, easy solution and might make it easier for your opponent to handle your army.

As for your Necron example, you (and 40k players in general ever since the FOC was created) have been spoiled by the fact that you can fit in these large elite formations into small points games with very little Troops. It's totally just a mindset thing. Obviously smaller games will be more troops heavy, that's not a bad thing. It just means that you can only bring out tons of bling in higher points games, and even so will still need that base of 25% troops no matter what. I fail to see how these are bad things? Especially because it will cause newer players to start looking at creating armies differently, not having to rely so hard on elite units and building a solid core before moving on to the other bits.
I shouldn't HAVE to play bigger games to get the models I want in. Why is it considered a good thing that I'm not allowed 3 Land Raiders at 1500 points? How does that make any sense?
Simply put it's stifles the creativity in a force. This is not a matter of being spoiled. This is a matter that, if I want to run a REALLY small elite force with 3 Land Raiders at 1500 points, I'm allowed to. If I wanted to run three Predators with Lascannon sponsons at 1000 points because they're efficient, I'm allowed to do that. Lastly, if I wanted to spend 1200 points on Terminators at 1750 points for some fluffy force for my Ultramarines with that Badab captain, I'm allowed to do that. Why should these be hampered when I'm not doing power gaming?
All these lists are relatively balanced, if even on the losing side; I know what I'm asking for by using that many Terminators. To deny that right though because people hate Tau players using 3 Riptides is a blasphemy though. It's a matter of internal balance, and nobody has yet to show me as incorrect on this. For that matter, I shouldn't have to play 2000 points games just to make my bad Terminator force idea work.

agurus1
10-03-2014, 06:24
I shouldn't HAVE to play bigger games to get the models I want in. Why is it considered a good thing that I'm not allowed 3 Land Raiders at 1500 points? How does that make any sense?
Simply put it's stifles the creativity in a force. This is not a matter of being spoiled. This is a matter that, if I want to run a REALLY small elite force with 3 Land Raiders at 1500 points, I'm allowed to. If I wanted to run three Predators with Lascannon sponsons at 1000 points because they're efficient, I'm allowed to do that. Lastly, if I wanted to spend 1200 points on Terminators at 1750 points for some fluffy force for my Ultramarines with that Badab captain, I'm allowed to do that. Why should these be hampered when I'm not doing power gaming?
All these lists are relatively balanced, if even on the losing side; I know what I'm asking for by using that many Terminators. To deny that right though because people hate Tau players using 3 Riptides is a blasphemy though. It's a matter of internal balance, and nobody has yet to show me as incorrect on this. For that matter, I shouldn't have to play 2000 points games just to make my bad Terminator force idea work.

Why shouldn't you? Your whole point of view on army building and seeming to feel offended by not being able to create the army you wish if 40k switched to a percentage system is arbitrary simply because it is based on you being USED to creating armies using the FOC and nothing else. I don't know if you play Fantasy but from your profile I'm going to assume you don't, or at least haven't in a while. They use a % system for their armies now, and while at first I found it difficult to get used to it is by no means stifling.

Overall a % system should both open up more lists to feel free to be fluffy overall since they don't have to worry about facing Min-Maxed or WAAC list. You could still fit in that many terminators using the DA codex if you wanted, or could still use SM and just take two 10-termi squads and combat squad
them. Who cares how "efficient" you think 3 preds with lascannons are? The goal of changing from FOC to % isn't efficiency its creating a soft but overarching restriction on how the armies are built that creates an environment where less WAAC builds are ok, more diversity can be seen, and in the long term creates more positive results. Essentially its about creating Balance.

Your desire to field "3 Elites, 3 Heavy Supports, ect...) is a byproduct of being used to the FOC which is based on the design of a Standard Adeptus Astartes Battle Company. Honestly you might as well ask, "Why not have 4 Elite slots instead of 3" for your argument. The number of slots is entirely arbitrary as worst or based off of the fluff of a Battle Company at best. How is that a good place to start creating an Army for anyone who isn't Astartes? It makes little to no sense. I might as well tell you shouldn't be taking 3 Predators in a game until you get a 2nd FOC cause your SM Battle Company would be using Devastators as Heavy Support unless it needed support from second line companies.

Langdon
10-03-2014, 06:28
Why shouldn't you? Your whole point of view on army building and seeming to feel offended by not being able to create the army you wish if 40k switched to a percentage system is arbitrary simply because it is based on you being USED to creating armies using the FOC and nothing else. I don't know if you play Fantasy but from your profile I'm going to assume you don't, or at least haven't in a while. They use a % system for their armies now, and while at first I found it difficult to get used to it is by no means stifling.

Overall a % system should both open up more lists to feel free to be fluffy overall since they don't have to worry about facing Min-Maxed or WAAC list. You could still fit in that many terminators using the DA codex if you wanted, or could still use SM and just take two 10-termi squads and combat squad
them. Who cares how "efficient" you think 3 preds with lascannons are? The goal of changing from FOC to % isn't efficiency its creating a soft but overarching restriction on how the armies are built that creates an environment where less WAAC builds are ok, more diversity can be seen, and in the long term creates more positive results. Essentially its about creating Balance.

Your desire to field "3 Elites, 3 Heavy Supports, ect...) is a byproduct of being used to the FOC which is based on the design of a Standard Adeptus Astartes Battle Company. Honestly you might as well ask, "Why not have 4 Elite slots instead of 3" for your argument. The number of slots is entirely arbitrary as worst or based off of the fluff of a Battle Company at best. How is that a good place to start creating an Army for anyone who isn't Astartes? It makes little to no sense. I might as well tell you shouldn't be taking 3 Predators in a game until you get a 2nd FOC cause your SM Battle Company would be using Devastators as Heavy Support unless it needed support from second line companies.


oh no the dreaded common sense..

get back fiend.. you are not welcome on Whineseer

/sarcasm


Very well said..

while i dont agree that a % system should be endorsed, i still feel there should be a limit on min/max and spammy lists..

By all means field 30 DeffWing, but 3 LR in 1500 leaves isnt all that fair on someone that cant handl 12 AV14 wounds.

agurus1
10-03-2014, 06:45
oh no the dreaded common sense..

get back fiend.. you are not welcome on Whineseer

/sarcasm


Very well said..

while i dont agree that a % system should be endorsed, i still feel there should be a limit on min/max and spammy lists..

By all means field 30 DeffWing, but 3 LR in 1500 leaves isnt all that fair on someone that cant handl 12 AV14 wounds.

*Hisses and flees to the shadows*

but yes I do think that the most important thing we can get from a new way of organizing Army building is MORE restrictions, not less. I'm only aiming for % based system because I play Fantasy and in my experience its simple and effective.

ehlijen
10-03-2014, 06:59
I shouldn't HAVE to play bigger games to get the models I want in. Why is it considered a good thing that I'm not allowed 3 Land Raiders at 1500 points? How does that make any sense?
Simply put it's stifles the creativity in a force. This is not a matter of being spoiled. This is a matter that, if I want to run a REALLY small elite force with 3 Land Raiders at 1500 points, I'm allowed to. If I wanted to run three Predators with Lascannon sponsons at 1000 points because they're efficient, I'm allowed to do that. Lastly, if I wanted to spend 1200 points on Terminators at 1750 points for some fluffy force for my Ultramarines with that Badab captain, I'm allowed to do that. Why should these be hampered when I'm not doing power gaming?
All these lists are relatively balanced, if even on the losing side; I know what I'm asking for by using that many Terminators. To deny that right though because people hate Tau players using 3 Riptides is a blasphemy though. It's a matter of internal balance, and nobody has yet to show me as incorrect on this. For that matter, I shouldn't have to play 2000 points games just to make my bad Terminator force idea work.

Do you remember when a WD in 3rd ed brought out rules for the Armoured Company? (An edition where, I should point out, vehicles were hit in CC against the facing you charged and meltaguns cost more than plasma).
AV14 existed, so of course players were well advised to bring some S9+ weapons to the table. But the AC list allowed a wall of AV14 tanks, line abreast, that made the tank army immune to any unit not packing S8+. To compensate, the tanks were made more expensive (a two edged sword, actually, back in the day of VPs based on cost).
The result showcased quite well just how badly the 40k rules system handled extreme armies. Prepared enemies would wipe the floor with the overpriced AC list. Enemies prepared for more sane lists found a singificant number of their units unable to contribute to the battle. Brought some autocannon havocs? Useless. Starcannon spam (considered broken in its own right)? Useless. LasPlas spam? Carved through it like butter.
Lists decided the game, not player skill.
It was possible to make reasonable AC lists (and the FW armoured battlegroup lists were better), but the game is built around troop choices supported by specialists fighting troop choices supported by specialists. It can't handle specialist only armies.

So when you're bringing 50% of your points in AV14 (and presumably hide the other 50% inside), you're reducing the game to rock paper scissors.

Player wants need to be curtailed if they interfere with the game actually being fun (for both sides). You want 3 land raiders? What if the opponent doesn't want to have to bring only melta and lascannon all the time? What if he likes HB devestators and that means you basically can't lose to him. Are you really going to enjoy that game?

Comrade JC
10-03-2014, 07:02
I like the idea of percentages.

As a fantasy and 40k player, even in casual games - I feel like the fantasy armies have so much more room for tinkering, trying different or even absurd things without automatically getting curb stomped by Elite + Heavy Support Spam.

While part of that is the much higher importance of the movement phase in fantasy - the other side is the percentage army restrictions. Your enemy can't field an all AV army which then makes half of your weapons entirely useless for the whole game.

The spam of 40k makes in more vulnerable to matches which are nearly pre-ordained from the get go, where in Fantasy you can always seem to outplay your way to victory. I'm not suggesting there's no beardy lists in Fantasy - but it's more rare.

And in the end, it's because everyone is limited to having a central core and can only pimp out the other things so much. You have to rely on things working together to win the game, because you have to field an army and not a one-choice beatstick.

agurus1
10-03-2014, 07:09
I like the idea of percentages.

As a fantasy and 40k player, even in casual games - I feel like the fantasy armies have so much more room for tinkering, trying different or even absurd things without automatically getting curb stomped by Elite + Heavy Support Spam.

While part of that is the much higher importance of the movement phase in fantasy - the other side is the percentage army restrictions. Your enemy can't field an all AV army which then makes half of your weapons entirely useless for the whole game.

The spam of 40k makes in more vulnerable to matches which are nearly pre-ordained from the get go, where in Fantasy you can always seem to outplay your way to victory. I'm not suggesting there's no beardy lists in Fantasy - but it's more rare.

And in the end, it's because everyone is limited to having a central core and can only pimp out the other things so much. You have to rely on things working together to win the game, because you have to field an army and not a one-choice beatstick.

excellent way of putting it. again, I'm not saying that % is the best shoe, but its something that GW has used before and is familiar with, so I think that if they ever do change the system it will be to % and not to something more esoteric and its why my posts focus on how to make that system work best.

agurus1
10-03-2014, 07:09
double post

Slayer-Fan123
10-03-2014, 07:22
Why shouldn't you? Your whole point of view on army building and seeming to feel offended by not being able to create the army you wish if 40k switched to a percentage system is arbitrary simply because it is based on you being USED to creating armies using the FOC and nothing else. I don't know if you play Fantasy but from your profile I'm going to assume you don't, or at least haven't in a while. They use a % system for their armies now, and while at first I found it difficult to get used to it is by no means stifling.

Overall a % system should both open up more lists to feel free to be fluffy overall since they don't have to worry about facing Min-Maxed or WAAC list. You could still fit in that many terminators using the DA codex if you wanted, or could still use SM and just take two 10-termi squads and combat squad
them. Who cares how "efficient" you think 3 preds with lascannons are? The goal of changing from FOC to % isn't efficiency its creating a soft but overarching restriction on how the armies are built that creates an environment where less WAAC builds are ok, more diversity can be seen, and in the long term creates more positive results. Essentially its about creating Balance.

Your desire to field "3 Elites, 3 Heavy Supports, ect...) is a byproduct of being used to the FOC which is based on the design of a Standard Adeptus Astartes Battle Company. Honestly you might as well ask, "Why not have 4 Elite slots instead of 3" for your argument. The number of slots is entirely arbitrary as worst or based off of the fluff of a Battle Company at best. How is that a good place to start creating an Army for anyone who isn't Astartes? It makes little to no sense. I might as well tell you shouldn't be taking 3 Predators in a game until you get a 2nd FOC cause your SM Battle Company would be using Devastators as Heavy Support unless it needed support from second line companies.
I was about to start Fantasy a long while ago when I was getting into 40k's 4th edition but the main shop that had all the Fantasy players closed right after I obtained the Fantasy rulebook and Lizardmen book. Pretty bad timing on my part, and for some reason the Fantasy players...disappeared after that. That's a totally different story though, but it's a fun anecdote about wasted money haha.

Here's the thing about WAAC or min-maxed lists: I don't care when I face those. Lists like that are allowed to be created by the codex, and I won't stop my opponent from bringing an all Kroot army at 1750 or 4 Riptides at 1750. I know full well a couple of my Carcharodons lists cannot help to match one of those, but I agree to the game anyway because I chose to use that list and have fun. If they decide to not WAAC/Min-max, that's fine by me. If they decide to, that's fine by me.
Therefore, the only way to really avoid this stuff is by creating better internal balance within a codex. Simple.

It's not a desire to field 3 Elites and 3 Heavy Support. It's a matter of that there are fluffy lists created by that are no longer allowed with a percentage system. You can very well claim I can field my Terminator list under Dark Angels, but I don't want to pay extra points for Fearless and PE: CSM. I like Baylock, and I like the Ultra Marines Chapter Tactics to go along with that. A percentage system totally gimps that.
As well a percentage system gimps me if I wanted to field 2 Biker squads and full Khorne Spawn squad in my Chaos Space Marines at 1500 points, which means I'm only allowed 375 points to spend on them. Where is the fun in that? Yeah sure I can't buy three Heldrakes anymore and do WAAC like that, but now I can't buy two full Biker squads either for my fluffy Chaos renegades.

Therefore, instead of gimping the FOC, we need to make internal balance better. Percentages won't stop Croissant Spam, and they won't stop troop Bikers in Marine armies, and it certainly won't stop Eldar with Wave spam because we are giving a bunch allotted to troops. At that point, we'd have to find ways to gimp that, which means now I cannot run a bunch of 20-man CSM squads if I wanted to do that for no real reason.

TL;DR Percentages don't actually stop spam and actually stop fluffy lists. Fluffy in your definition is clearly different from mine, whereas mine is more about character of a force and yours is more diversity in units presented. Therefore, we need better internal balance in a codex and, all the sudden, spam kinda stops.

Tebrey
10-03-2014, 07:47
I agree on internal balance being an issue, but that isn't going to change. Tau was designed to sell new models. Riptides at 200 points? Crazy. Should 300 points at least. Cheap upgrades on everything? No. Make them pay. If all the units in all codexes were balance using a single core system, like in RT, that would limit them in lists just fine. 1000 points of guard should be equal to 1000 points of Tau/chaos/marine/whatever.

Maybe just increase the number of minimum troop slots in a list? Four maybe? Then you are free to spend the rest of your points as you see fit. It would help, anyway.

Whatever they do, no opponents permission crap. That leads to people with certain codexes (looking at you Tau) not allowing things that can beat them. I've seen it happen.

agurus1
10-03-2014, 07:58
I was about to start Fantasy a long while ago when I was getting into 40k's 4th edition but the main shop that had all the Fantasy players closed right after I obtained the Fantasy rulebook and Lizardmen book. Pretty bad timing on my part, and for some reason the Fantasy players...disappeared after that. That's a totally different story though, but it's a fun anecdote about wasted money haha.

That sucks man, Fantasy is pretty sweet. I duck my head in there every so often when I can't seem to get excited about 40k for a bit.


Here's the thing about WAAC or min-maxed lists: I don't care when I face those. Lists like that are allowed to be created by the codex, and I won't stop my opponent from bringing an all Kroot army at 1750 or 4 Riptides at 1750. I know full well a couple of my Carcharodons lists cannot help to match one of those, but I agree to the game anyway because I chose to use that list and have fun. If they decide to not WAAC/Min-max, that's fine by me. If they decide to, that's fine by me.
Therefore, the only way to really avoid this stuff is by creating better internal balance within a codex. Simple.

Its all well and good to say "create better internal balance in codex's" but in all honesty we all know its not just internal balance that is creating this problem its the Escalation, and Formations and so on. Also creating internal balance all over again will be another several year wait, for the more recent codex's to be redone. A change in how armies are made by removing the FOC and implementing something else (like a % system) takes care of the problems immediately, instead of simply handling the Codex's one at a time as Escalation looms over your shoulder. So its simply more expedient to take care of everything in one go, than sequentially.


It's not a desire to field 3 Elites and 3 Heavy Support. It's a matter of that there are fluffy lists created by that are no longer allowed with a percentage system. You can very well claim I can field my Terminator list under Dark Angels, but I don't want to pay extra points for Fearless and PE: CSM. I like Baylock, and I like the Ultra Marines Chapter Tactics to go along with that. A percentage system totally gimps that.
As well a percentage system gimps me if I wanted to field 2 Biker squads and full Khorne Spawn squad in my Chaos Space Marines at 1500 points, which means I'm only allowed 375 points to spend on them. Where is the fun in that? Yeah sure I can't buy three Heldrakes anymore and do WAAC like that, but now I can't buy two full Biker squads either for my fluffy Chaos renegades.

Once again, I'm not saying that its a "desire" to field 3 elites, ect... Its that you are used to that being an option, "conditioned" if you will, so the possibility that you won't be able to field 3 elite units in any size game is going to create a knee-jerk reaction that is in the negative because you automatically fell like your person preferences are being stifled and lose sight of the big picture. In all actuality, it makes no sense why you would use the same organization for a small unit action (1000 points), as you would a larger battle (1850-2000). It makes sense for the army building system used scales with the size of the battle you are playing, and helps keep the game balance and consistent overall. You are missing the sense of that because you are hung up on the "well I always used to be able to bring 3 Elites, 3 FA, 3 HS in every game so its wrong that I couldn't do that using %".


Therefore, instead of gimping the FOC, we need to make internal balance better. Percentages won't stop Croissant Spam, and they won't stop troop Bikers in Marine armies, and it certainly won't stop Eldar with Wave spam because we are giving a bunch allotted to troops. At that point, we'd have to find ways to gimp that, which means now I cannot run a bunch of 20-man CSM squads if I wanted to do that for no real reason.

Once again, trying to redo all of the Codex will take far too long, when a simply change to the core rules of how to build an army solves it much faster. and yes % would stop those examples, simply by the fact that you couldn't take more than two of any choice until you hit 2000. or did you forget that? So say, 2 Immortal Squads in Croissants, then you have to look at other choices, 2 bike troops, 2 dire avengers in serpents.


TL;DR Percentages don't actually stop spam and actually stop fluffy lists. Fluffy in your definition is clearly different from mine, whereas mine is more about character of a force and yours is more diversity in units presented. Therefore, we need better internal balance in a codex and, all the sudden, spam kinda stops.

So in response to your conclusion, % would stop spam, and while some "fluffy" builds might struggle at smaller points levels, over all people would be less restricted to only using Spam, WAAC, TAC lists and feel more free to use "fluffy" builds cause they won't have to worry about having to deal with the harder stuff that is around with the current FOC. Doesn't mean that people can't be competitive or fluffy but it does mean that both types of people will have to adjust their lists to the new system, and overall the game will benefit from more balance than from less restriction.

On the more personal side, I never put forward my definition of fluffy and since its general term that can excuse almost any build under the sun it really has no reason to exist in this discussion that is essentially about game mechanics. While I like "fluffy" builds, I think that the game needs more restriction from what exists now for people who look mostly for pickup games or the tournament scene. If you don't like how the % system affects the way you build your army and think its restricts its fluff, then you can try to arrange house rules with your local group to allow you to build an army that your like. However I think that its telling that most house rules nowadays concentrate on restricting the core game not the other way around. I think that the % system would be a much better "core" ruleset than the FOC as far as the OVERALL community.

CrownAxe
10-03-2014, 08:10
This poll is terrible. It basically has the same answer twice and doesn't have "we should make the FOC stricter" as an answer

Hawkkf
10-03-2014, 08:16
I agree on internal balance being an issue, but that isn't going to change. Tau was designed to sell new models. Riptides at 200 points? Crazy. Should 300 points at least. Cheap upgrades on everything? No. Make them pay. If all the units in all codexes were balance using a single core system, like in RT, that would limit them in lists just fine. 1000 points of guard should be equal to 1000 points of Tau/chaos/marine/whatever.

Maybe just increase the number of minimum troop slots in a list? Four maybe? Then you are free to spend the rest of your points as you see fit. It would help, anyway.

Whatever they do, no opponents permission crap. That leads to people with certain codexes (looking at you Tau) not allowing things that can beat them. I've seen it happen.

I was thinking along these same lines. They aren't going to switch to a percentage system as GW targets younger kids who tend to turn away from even simple math in games (some I have seen in my local GW don't bother to add up thier points, they just guestimate.. poorly). It is much easier for younger gamers to build up an army by a slot at a time rather than trying to figure out how to fit it in thier army percentage wise. They have a free slot they can fit it as long as they have points instead of having to get more troops first to justify the heavy support option they are eyeing.

Upping the minimum number of troop is the best way to go, but it isn't perfect. For some armies troops are relatively expensive while they are dirt cheap for others. Perhaps a better system is that for each Troop choice taken it unlocks another choice from the force org. The maximum number of options on the force org are determined by the point level except Troops which would have no limit. For example at 2k I could get 3 Troops options to unlock 6 units from 1-2 HQ, 0-3 Elite, 0-3 FA, 0-3 HS, 0-1 Fortification, 0-1 LoW. Allies and formations would count against the slots for thier espective unit types. For every 2000 or so points double the force org. My points I chose were as an example and would have to have more thought put behind them.

Spiney Norman
10-03-2014, 11:18
All these lists are relatively balanced, if even on the losing side; I know what I'm asking for by using that many Terminators. To deny that right though because people hate Tau players using 3 Riptides is a blasphemy though. It's a matter of internal balance, and nobody has yet to show me as incorrect on this. For that matter, I shouldn't have to play 2000 points games just to make my bad Terminator force idea work.

The thing is you have to draw the restrictions lines somewhere, I could equally say with the current FOC chart that I really want to run 6 units of sisters Repentia at 1500pts (would anyone consider that 'broken'?), but woe is me the FOC doesn't allow it, that's so unfair, what gives them the right to limit what I want to take etc etc.

The fact is the game is currently too unrestricted to make it an enjoyable experience, and yes that it primarily down to internal balance, but GW has not produced a perfectly balanced codex in their history, if they could consistently put out well balanced codices there would be no need for a FOC at all, there would be no need for troops to be the only scoring units (a fairly abstract bonus they get purely to make people want to take them) because everything in the game would be costed according to its actual ability and worth on the field and thus everything would be viable.

But that is not the game we play, all the codexes in use have their broken builds and their overpowered units, and every book GW produces throughout the life of 7th edition will be the same. The purpose of the FOC is to curb those excesses, if you want a totally de-restricted game then either agree with your opponent in advance (and don't cry when he shows up with half a dozen riptides) or play apocalypse.

Tarax
10-03-2014, 12:12
I shouldn't HAVE to play bigger games to get the models I want in. Why is it considered a good thing that I'm not allowed 3 Land Raiders at 1500 points? How does that make any sense?
Simply put it's stifles the creativity in a force...

Taking everything you want in your force is more creative? Making actual decisions on what you take is creative! Actually have to make choices is creative!
I'm sorry (for you), but you're just not making sense (to me).

Lanacane
10-03-2014, 13:00
Taking everything you want in your force is more creative? Making actual decisions on what you take is creative! Actually have to make choices is creative!
I'm sorry (for you), but you're just not making sense (to me).

Tarax, let him take what he wants.

Doesn't mean he will get a game in.

williamsond
10-03-2014, 13:28
A move to % system and a change to the rules for allies could go a long way to changing the deathstar mentality that I'm seeing more and more these days. Armies may even start to look like armies again rather than collections of random units from the 4 corners of the galaxy. I remeber the old % system and although it made checking point values a bit more complicated to my 13 year old self it worked alot better than the current minimum trops maximum cheese system. I don't like seeing individual unarmed battle suits as troop choices but i do see them alot these days. But only time and 7th edition will tell.

forbin
10-03-2014, 13:41
well I dont post often here these days but I do read a lot

yes I'd prefer a "stricter " option for the poll

percentages also has my vote

I believe with a Knights army I'd have all scoring units . Is this an issue? We have restrictions on scoring units being infantry , we had restrictions on the FOC for specialists , ie Oblits weer 0-1 , I can have three now so bringing them back will not be an issue in a new codex.

but I an struck by the thought that if the FOC is going to change then it will be changed to make sure more models are sold

GW is still after all a model designer company that has the rules attached ......

discuss

Forbin

PS: keep up the good comments - interesting to get different views

ehlijen
10-03-2014, 14:20
Here's the thing about WAAC or min-maxed lists: I don't care when I face those. Lists like that are allowed to be created by the codex, and I won't stop my opponent from bringing an all Kroot army at 1750 or 4 Riptides at 1750. I know full well a couple of my Carcharodons lists cannot help to match one of those, but I agree to the game anyway because I chose to use that list and have fun. If they decide to not WAAC/Min-max, that's fine by me. If they decide to, that's fine by me.
Therefore, the only way to really avoid this stuff is by creating better internal balance within a codex. Simple.

Unlike you, a lot of people actually want a game where the victor is decided by ingame decisions, not pregame ones. In game decisions change based on the opponents actions and thus naturally involve player interaction. Pregame ones do no require an opponent. 40k, as it stands, does not facilitate that.

It's great that you enjoy the game as it is, but others feel they'd enjoy it more if it was a little different.

Yes, making the codices better balanced is an important step in that, but so is making the composition restrictions actually matter. And that means tightening them.


It's not a desire to field 3 Elites and 3 Heavy Support. It's a matter of that there are fluffy lists created by that are no longer allowed with a percentage system. You can very well claim I can field my Terminator list under Dark Angels, but I don't want to pay extra points for Fearless and PE: CSM. I like Baylock, and I like the Ultra Marines Chapter Tactics to go along with that. A percentage system totally gimps that.

Terminators are specialists. They aren't supposed to be mainstay units. GW wrote some stories about all terminator attacks, sure, but those would be special scenarios (which can still exist and have alternate percentage breakdowns the same way the FO chart isn't always the standard as in say planetstrike).

So really we need to add 'write fluff that's more in line with what the game actually works like' to the to do list of 40k improvements.


As well a percentage system gimps me if I wanted to field 2 Biker squads and full Khorne Spawn squad in my Chaos Space Marines at 1500 points, which means I'm only allowed 375 points to spend on them. Where is the fun in that? Yeah sure I can't buy three Heldrakes anymore and do WAAC like that, but now I can't buy two full Biker squads either for my fluffy Chaos renegades.

The fun is in using those 375 points of FA units to support your line units, who are meant to be the backbone of a chaos army. Or you could make up special scenarios where the objectives are more in keeping with needing more FA deployments like that.


Therefore, instead of gimping the FOC, we need to make internal balance better.

We need to do both. Without FO restrictions, the game system can't handle deviations from the infantry norm too well, which means allowing everything and anything would basically result in a game where we have hundreds of different models but no real in game distinction in their rules.
If we want super tough transport tanks and cool hip firing HMG troopers in the same game, we need to either let the HMGs be able to hurt the tank reliably enough to have a chance (thus making the tank not all that tough) or restrict the use of units that deviate too far from the baseline trooper. You call that curtailing the fun, I call it basic necessity of game design.


Percentages won't stop Croissant Spam, and they won't stop troop Bikers in Marine armies, and it certainly won't stop Eldar with Wave spam because we are giving a bunch allotted to troops. At that point, we'd have to find ways to gimp that, which means now I cannot run a bunch of 20-man CSM squads if I wanted to do that for no real reason.

No, they won't. But spam isn't about abusing undercosted units, it's about maximising force concentration. Not everything can be fixed by costing it right. You also need to restrict it to avoid a full on rock paper scissor system.

If I can bring an all air army and you can bring either an all CC army or an all AAA army...chances are there will be many pointless games played where player input doesn't matter. So air units are limited and AAA is limited to ensure a strong focus on the mechanics the game is built around: infantry vs infantry combat.


TL;DR Percentages don't actually stop spam and actually stop fluffy lists. Fluffy in your definition is clearly different from mine, whereas mine is more about character of a force and yours is more diversity in units presented. Therefore, we need better internal balance in a codex and, all the sudden, spam kinda stops.

We need better balance, yes. But GW also needs to write better fluff to stop players begging for armies that will kill game balance. Specialist heavy armies should be for specilist scenarios only. You're free to play only those, if you prefer them, but the baseline all comers generic scenario game should be focused on the baseline unit, and that happens to be the baseline infantry (and for marines that means tacticals/equivalents).

Commissar Merces
10-03-2014, 14:33
If GW wants to push a cavalier attitude towards its 40k FoC, then I think the percentage system is the ONLY reasonable solution to fix the game. While I am lukewarm about fantasy, they do certain things really well, especially in army building. Mandating that people need to have 25% of their army be troops is frankly a GODSEND compared to right now where we have the opposite problem where people bring the minimum required troops if their army sucks at providing scoring units, (ex. tyranids, sisters, eldar to a degree) while stockpiling the good stuff into their list. On the flip side, you have some armies that have too many good things outside of troops so they min their troops and max the pain (Tau, Eldar, etc) Troops for some armies are like taxes. You have to take them because the FoC demands it, but a percentage system to me forces you to really consider what you are taking inside your slot because it forces you to maximize your troop choice potential compared to skirting the issue all together.

As such, I would propose the following changes.

500-1,000 points
up to 25% HQ
25% Troops (mandatory)
up to 50% Elite, Fast, Heavy
up to 25% can be fortifications
No allies, super heavies, or data slates allowed

1000-2000 points
up to 25% HQ
25% Troops (mandatory)
up to 50% Elite, Fast, Heavy
up to 25% can be allies.
up to 25% can be a data slate
up to 25% can be fortifications
no super heavies

2000+ points
25% Troops (mandatory)
No further restrictions

Tarax
10-03-2014, 15:46
up to 50% Elite, Fast, Heavy

Do you mean of each or combined? It makes a difference. Besides, I think 50% is still too much in any case.



up to 25% can be fortifications

How many Defense Lines is that?
I don't think fortifications should be part of the FOC, unless in special scenarios. Yet, it's good that there are now rules for them if taken as general/common scenery.

Lanacane
10-03-2014, 16:04
How many Defense Lines is that?

considering its 1 per Primary Detachment.. i would say 1 ADL.

with the 25% you can still fit a FoR into a 1k army if you wanted

Charistoph
10-03-2014, 16:23
The really funny part about all of this is, you can easily do percentages in friendly games to try them out and see how well they work. You can even do this in local tournaments! My LGS does weird tournaments like this all the *******' time.

I think that percentages can be abused just as easily as slots, in my opinion. The difference is the simple fact that Marines can get more out of their Troops than most other armies can.

I think there should be other changes to the FOC, part of this is under the assumption that each player would have their own mission to work with:
1 Warlord Slot - generally required, even Kill Team has this now, sort of.
0-1 Lord of War with the purchase of two Primary Detachments
All Elite, FA, and HS unit choices may only be selected more than twice a Detachment when four Troop Choices are purchased for that Same Detachment.
The number of Auxiliary units are based on the number of Troops in the Detachment and still one per slot. Formations take up a Primary slot (minimum) and must be composed of units from specified codices.

From there, FOCs are separated into desired roles:
The Generalist FOC:
PrimaryAllied
0-2 HQ
2-6 Troops
0-3 Elites
0-3 FA
0-3 HS

1 HQ
1-2 Troops
0-* Auxiliary units
* Auxiliary Units are chosen from the Allied Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support choices.
1 small Fortification

The Aggressor FOC:
This FOC would lend weight to having Purge and Relic, while not having Scouring or Big Guns as an option.
PrimaryAllied
0-2 HQ
2-6 Troops
0-4 Elites
0-1 FA
0-2 HS
1HQ
1-2 Troops
0-* Auxiliary
*Auxiliary units are chosen from the Allied Elites and Heavy Support choices
No Fortifications

The Scout FOC:
This FOC would replace Purge with Relic and Big Guns with Scouring for mission selection.
PrimaryAllied
0-2 HQ
2-6 Troops
0-2 Elites
0-4 FA
0-1 HS
1 HQ
1-2 Troops
0-* Auxiliary
* Auxiliary units are chosen from the Allied FA and Elite Choices
No Fortifications

The Defender FOC:
This FOC would replace Scouring with Big Guns and Relic with Crusade.
PrimaryAllied
0-2 HQ
2-8 Troops
0-2 Elites
0-1 FA
0-4 HS
1 HQ
1-2 Troops
0-* Auxiliary Units
* Axuiliary Units are chose from the Allied Elite and HS choices.
1 Fortification, any size

Unexo
10-03-2014, 16:33
We need a new system

This could be FoC+ to include escelation, flyers and fortification limits. Meaning a (or several) slot for each.

However i would be more interested in having a percentag limit like fantasy. This should go in addition to minimum requirements of 1 HQ 1-2 troops for main detachments and 1 HQ 1 troop for allies.

0-20% HQ
20-100% troop
0-20% elite
0-20% fast
0-20% heavy
0-20% flyer (could also substract from fast, with 0-30% in fast where 0-20% may be fliers)
0-20% fort (could also substract from heavy, with 0-30% in heavy where 0-20% may be fortifications)
0-20% super heavy (could also substract from elite, with 0-30% in elite where 0-20% may be super heavies)

Changed to 20% instead of 25% because of 3 new slots.

0-100% main detachment (2 troop 1 HQ min)
X-100% allies (1 troop 1 HQ min)

I would also add restrictions to the categories.
Allies allowed at 1000+
Flyers allowed at 1500+
Fort allowed at 1500+
Super heavies at 2000+
Destroyer weapons at 3000+

For me, these chances to the FoC would make me start playing again. I am selling my entire army in April due to all changes since 6th and fliers were introduced. With 100% super heavy 'standard allowed' armies, I am simple out for good.

wyvirn
10-03-2014, 16:40
Do you mean of each or combined? It makes a difference. Besides, I think 50% is still too much in any case.






But that's how it was in second edition, praise be into the perfect edition...

AndrewGPaul
10-03-2014, 16:43
But back then, Devastator and Assault squads (and other armies' equivalents) were in the Troops section. :) As were Terminators, for that matter. Only vehicles and artillery were relegated to the Support section.

Minsc
10-03-2014, 17:03
If they're gonna change it, I'd like for them to go the WFB-approach with the 40k FoC.

0-33% HQ.
25%+ Troops.
0-33% Elites.
0-33% Fast Attack.
0-33% Heavy Support.
(0-25% Allies, I guess...)

No more than 3 of the same unit from Elites/Fast/Heavy in one detatchment.

But then, I don't really mind the current FoC. I do however think that 2000 pts for dual FoC's is way to low. It should be one additional FoC at 3000 pts, not 2000 pts.
(Not that it matters to me that much, I rarely attend tournaments, and in my gamingcircle it's more or less a houserule that we only play with 1 FoC unless we're playing 1v2/2v2/3v3 and/or more than 3000 points.)

murgel2006
10-03-2014, 17:41
All this is about the Standard FOC. And the first option is to not change it, meaning adhere to it strictly. (yes, that also means no more take X and treat y as troops. They now have the new mini-dexes for stuff like this :eek:)

In stores, for the pic up game, is there really the need for a standard FOC? I do not know how it is around your places but here the fast and spontaneous games all have their lists done right before the game. Simply because people do not know army size and what army they will face. Personally I have tried showing up with a list and find an opponent with a pre-made list. Bad luck almost every time. Quite often because people play at 1k to 1.5k and for me, I feel a flexible list has to have at least 1850. (Also because I am unable to make a list smaller list that feels ok to me...).

Personally the best idea to me would be to publish 2-3 slightly different standard FOCs. Also I would love to see a same unit restriction, capping at 2.

A different approach could be a FOC builder starting with a core like 1HQ, 1Elite,2 Troops,1FA,1 heavy. And then building blocks like "2 Elites or 1 LOW" or "one spearhead formation or 2 heavy".

I hope you get my drift. A bit of flexibility and another toy to play and create armies with. Of course the PGs will abuse it awfully again but then, this is a big part of their fun in the game. Thus I shall not blame them.
:)

Lokust
10-03-2014, 18:39
I'd like to see a system where you start with 0-0 HS, FA, Elite, and for each two troops units you take, you add 1 HS, FA & elite. Maybe even have second HQ unlock at 3 or 4 troop choices.

I think this would introduce scalability in a good way, to a game that could really use it.

agurus1
10-03-2014, 18:41
I don't know maybe I'm biased because my community is so laid back and non-competitive in the sense that they don't go to a game thinking "I want to bend this guy over and ..." And their lists usually reflect this. Also most folks around here look down at creating a list directly before hand unless it is to match an opponents smaller list by cutting down from the "standard" around here of 1750. For instance I'll normally go in using the same 1750 list for several weeks unless I want to try something new, but I do the list building at home, not when I find out what army I'm playing or what not. I think that this cuts down on "tailoring" which can become a problem for some groups, and increases variety in lists cause you never know what you might be facing. Also around here we don't make much use of Escalation but when we do we let the opponent know first and see if they want to face the challenge and if they do we often recommend to then to modify their list to reflect the escalated conflict lol. I have been turned down games before because my Legion list can be hard to face and I understand that. My list isn't WAAC or spammed but it's built in such a way that is balanced and likely have a good chance at taking most of the armies I face. I think that using a % system will merely improve the game for folks that aren't spamming or so on and restrict those who are and overall level the playing field and encourage Tactics over "spam X units and then point and click" ;)

Spiney Norman
10-03-2014, 18:46
If they're gonna change it, I'd like for them to go the WFB-approach with the 40k FoC.

0-33% HQ.
25%+ Troops.
0-33% Elites.
0-33% Fast Attack.
0-33% Heavy Support.
(0-25% Allies, I guess...)

No more than 3 of the same unit from Elites/Fast/Heavy in one detatchment.

But then, I don't really mind the current FoC. I do however think that 2000 pts for dual FoC's is way to low. It should be one additional FoC at 3000 pts, not 2000 pts.
(Not that it matters to me that much, I rarely attend tournaments, and in my gamingcircle it's more or less a houserule that we only play with 1 FoC unless we're playing 1v2/2v2/3v3 and/or more than 3000 points.)

I rather think that if they go for percentages it will all be in quarters like fantasy, I somehow doubt that they will require players to divide their list by three or five.

More likely to be

HQ - 0-25%
Core - 25%+
Elite - 0-25%
Fast attack - 0-25%
Heavy Support - 0-25%
Lord of War (max 1) - 0-25%
Allies - 0-25%
Fortifications (max 1 network) - 0-25%

Minsc
10-03-2014, 21:15
I rather think that if they go for percentages it will all be in quarters like fantasy, I somehow doubt that they will require players to divide their list by three or five.

More likely to be

HQ - 0-25%
Core - 25%+
Elite - 0-25%
Fast attack - 0-25%
Heavy Support - 0-25%
Lord of War (max 1) - 0-25%
Allies - 0-25%
Fortifications (max 1 network) - 0-25%

I actually made it in quarters first, but in Fantasy it's 0-25/0-25/25+/0-50/0-25.

0-25% of your army in either elites, fast or heavy seems very little, if you're gonna make a list that focuses on one or the other.


I'd like to see a system where you start with 0-0 HS, FA, Elite, and for each two troops units you take, you add 1 HS, FA & elite. Maybe even have second HQ unlock at 3 or 4 troop choices.

I think this would introduce scalability in a good way, to a game that could really use it.

If only it wouldn't gimp armies who have bad troops even more, I'd agree.

Edit: But come to think of it, I can't really think of an army who has only bad troops right now.

Slayer-Fan123
10-03-2014, 22:06
That sucks man, Fantasy is pretty sweet. I duck my head in there every so often when I can't seem to get excited about 40k for a bit.



Its all well and good to say "create better internal balance in codex's" but in all honesty we all know its not just internal balance that is creating this problem its the Escalation, and Formations and so on. Also creating internal balance all over again will be another several year wait, for the more recent codex's to be redone. A change in how armies are made by removing the FOC and implementing something else (like a % system) takes care of the problems immediately, instead of simply handling the Codex's one at a time as Escalation looms over your shoulder. So its simply more expedient to take care of everything in one go, than sequentially.



Once again, I'm not saying that its a "desire" to field 3 elites, ect... Its that you are used to that being an option, "conditioned" if you will, so the possibility that you won't be able to field 3 elite units in any size game is going to create a knee-jerk reaction that is in the negative because you automatically fell like your person preferences are being stifled and lose sight of the big picture. In all actuality, it makes no sense why you would use the same organization for a small unit action (1000 points), as you would a larger battle (1850-2000). It makes sense for the army building system used scales with the size of the battle you are playing, and helps keep the game balance and consistent overall. You are missing the sense of that because you are hung up on the "well I always used to be able to bring 3 Elites, 3 FA, 3 HS in every game so its wrong that I couldn't do that using %".



Once again, trying to redo all of the Codex will take far too long, when a simply change to the core rules of how to build an army solves it much faster. and yes % would stop those examples, simply by the fact that you couldn't take more than two of any choice until you hit 2000. or did you forget that? So say, 2 Immortal Squads in Croissants, then you have to look at other choices, 2 bike troops, 2 dire avengers in serpents.



So in response to your conclusion, % would stop spam, and while some "fluffy" builds might struggle at smaller points levels, over all people would be less restricted to only using Spam, WAAC, TAC lists and feel more free to use "fluffy" builds cause they won't have to worry about having to deal with the harder stuff that is around with the current FOC. Doesn't mean that people can't be competitive or fluffy but it does mean that both types of people will have to adjust their lists to the new system, and overall the game will benefit from more balance than from less restriction.

On the more personal side, I never put forward my definition of fluffy and since its general term that can excuse almost any build under the sun it really has no reason to exist in this discussion that is essentially about game mechanics. While I like "fluffy" builds, I think that the game needs more restriction from what exists now for people who look mostly for pickup games or the tournament scene. If you don't like how the % system affects the way you build your army and think its restricts its fluff, then you can try to arrange house rules with your local group to allow you to build an army that your like. However I think that its telling that most house rules nowadays concentrate on restricting the core game not the other way around. I think that the % system would be a much better "core" ruleset than the FOC as far as the OVERALL community.
Shame, really, since I like the Lizardmen models.

I hope you realize that Escalation is not required to play the game just like Cities Of Death and Stronghold Assault (though I heard enough about Stronghold Assault that I think people should just purchase it for expansion period as I plan to do eventually). As well, the only lists it stops are 2-3 Heldrakes and then Riptide spam. It doesn't stop Biker lists for marines, Wave Serpent Spam for Eldar, and Croissant Flight for Necrons. Really, all we did is make more armies more uncompetitive. Therefore we need to find a way from people spamming the TROOP option for Pete's sake. Of course, putting a cap on Troops sounds silly though, right?

It's a condition that comes from love for specific units. I don't see why the chart wouldn't work for varying point levels. Does it make more sense that there would be just one HQ unit you spent a decent amount of points on at 1000 points? Sure, but I should have the right to purchase two of them even though it's clearly a point sink. Sometimes that's just how the force is created for purposes of playing or purposes of fluff. I haven't lost sight of the big picture, you guys have due to Taudar being a thing.

Codices get redone eventually. As well, I think it's silly that I'm only allowed to use two of each option as an even further handicap. Now I lack even more options for troop choices in Necrons. I did not remember that limit of two because we were talking percentages, which is a completely different system. Implementing both is simply just ridiculous at that point and even more limiting.

Overall, I will say that a percentage system will not help already underpowered codices like Tyranids, Sisters Of Battle, and Chaos Space Marines when they lack good options in the first place, and the ability to use those good options in greater numbers already. When internal balance is fixed I'd be all for a percentage system. Until then I cannot support the system when it hurts more armies than it helps.

Fear Ghoul
10-03-2014, 22:21
I think the percentages system described by Siney earlier was pretty much bang on the money, and if they implemented this change in 7th edition then it would be the biggest improvement to the game by far.

Comrade JC
10-03-2014, 22:30
I've seen a lot of singling out of the "Take Character X and Y becomes troops" as one of the problems with FOCs - and I have to say I agree.

I have played pure Deathwing (not with the new DA book, the last one) and it was never a competitive army. But part of that was I actually played pure DW, not a take Belial, get DW as troops and throw random stuff on top.

I think GW should continue to promote specialized armies like this that retain their focus on the somewhat core infantry vs infantry mechanics, but approach it more how the 3rd Ed. DA book did it. For those who don't know - the 3rd Ed book had rules for both pure DW and pure RW. If you played DW - you could take anything in Termie armour for any slot, LRs as HS or Dedicated Transports and I think Naughts as Elites or HS. Everything else in the book was banned. Ravenwing worked similarly.

To me, this is the best solution for these specialist armies. Yes, you should be able to play pure Deathwing or Ravenwing or all bike White Scars. But if you make that decisions you should be stuck with it and not free to randomly drop other units that do not fit the specialty.

Continuing Deathwing as the example, and assuming FOC is the same I would look at something like the below. Only issue I could see here is LR spam, but in such a high point/model army, it would be limited seeing as taking 2 troops with LRs is already 1000 points:
HQ - any characters in Termie Armour
Troops - Deathwing Squads
Elites - Dreads, Deathwing Knights
Fast Attack - Deathwing Squads, LRs
HS - LRs and Dreads
Dedicated Transports - LRs

Other armies - such as Armoured Column or all Air are more problematic. Unlike Deathwing, Ravenwing, Hellions as Troops or whatever specialty it is still using infantry-like statlines as troops armies that are all AV vehicles or all fliers can simply invalidate an opponent. Termies can be killed with volume of fire, even 30 of them. Main battle tanks sometimes cannot.

Spiney Norman
10-03-2014, 23:49
I actually made it in quarters first, but in Fantasy it's 0-25/0-25/25+/0-50/0-25.

0-25% of your army in either elites, fast or heavy seems very little, if you're gonna make a list that focuses on one or the other.

I'd say that was because that is not how the game is intended to be played, quite clearly the way the FOC is designed currently the 'average' army is intended to have a core of troops choices and roughly equal additions from heavy support, fast and elites, there are examples of armies that focus more on elite or fast attack choices but they typically have a mechanic where by those units are moved into the troop selection, allowing the list to properly focus on them (examples being Deathwing armies, space marine bike armies and haemonculus armies unlocking wracks as troops and many other such examples).

To use the fantasy example, I've never really heard anyone complain that they can't build an army exclusively of rare choices, its just a mental shift away from the current prevalent min-maxing culture in 40k that needs to happen for the good of the game.

I take the point that in a fantasy army special choices have double the allowance of rare choices, but understand that in fantasy units are grouped by their rarity (which generally translates into their power), and it makes sense to have the rarer (read more powerful) units less available.

On the other hand in 40k they are grouped by battlefield role, so it doesn't really make any sense to allow armies to take a higher percentage of heavy support or Fast attack than it does elites for example.

I guess certain missions could move the percentages (like big guns never tire could allow 50% heavy) but that would mean you'd have to roll for mission before writing your list, which becomes a little awkward, especially when some groups apparently work by getting your opponents approval on your list when you set up the game.


If only it wouldn't gimp armies who have bad troops even more, I'd agree.

Edit: But come to think of it, I can't really think of an army who has only bad troops right now.

I think Sisters of battle are the only army that has only sub-par troops currently, but the reality is that the rest of the list isn't much better anyway so it actually isn't going to make that much difference.

stidf
11-03-2014, 18:51
I would like to throw in my 2 cents. I don't like percentages for determining force composition. They encourage death stars in short. I think back to my times of thinking how many characters can I squeeze into this highly efficient delivery system for maximum murder. They also are less convenient if you have things like guard platoons or other force decisions that come with multiple units for a single choice. I also recognize that the current FOC is just doesn't have any practical effect in terms of army list comp now due to the additions of allies and stand alone supplements and all the like. The game is also suffering from the introduction of many new unit types, many of which aren't that easy to kill by the existing unit types. These new unit types also drastically alter game play due to their presence.

With all this as a preface here are some thoughts:

There should be a single force org chart that includes all unit types that games workshop wants to include in 40k.
It should scale as you increase point size.
I don't think the game needs to necessarily limit the inclusion of super heavies, lords of war and whatever in smaller point games, just have them take up more slots and cost enough points that it starts becoming prohibitively expensive to run them in smaller point games.
The game should be flexible enough so that if someone wants to field a terminator army, or a jump infantry army or an air cav army they can assuming they pick the correct race to play and equip their leaders appropriately.


I also envision an overhaul of the entire list building system. One where you basically start with the standard trooper of your race and you organize and equip squads how ever you see fit given these choices. Each race would have rules for equipment ratios that determine where in the FOC the unit you created ends up. Also allow for standardized specialized training options like the 4th ed CSM list had the option for. Think along the lines of the 4th ed guard doctrines rules expanded and customized for each army. For example your marine chapter takes the jump infantry, CC specialists and some other choices. Now your standard marines have ccw and pistols plus jump packs. Give too many of them special weapon or vet skill options now they are elite. Start giving them heavy weapons they become heavy support that sort of thing. However if you specialize your army with too many doctrines you have to start picking negative traits as well. Some races could be more specialized than others before they start incurring negative traits. Negative traits could include things like blood rage, or cowardly or slow to react. Of course all of this requires a game system that has a much better defined points per battlefield utility value.

Just think how interesting the game would get if you would uniquely make minor modifications to your standard list to make your chapter, craftworld or guard legion unique in both a tactical and strategic manner. Yet it still would have recognizable troop, elite, fast attack and heavy support distinctions between the troops. Devastator termies, guard veteran squads that infiltrate and have tank hunter, or entire armies that have been trained to have stealth? With a little balance the options would be huge and would really allow GW to sell their whole model range. Plus it would give players so much flavor in building their armies with models they like and have a decent chance of winning against whatever comes its way.

Beppo1234
11-03-2014, 19:17
I'm not down with %s. I have a feeling it'll turn out more limiting than


I'd prefer that they just keep the FOC as is, but maybe increasing the mandatory troops requirement to 3 might change things up in a good way. I'd also like the ability to take lesser HQs as elites, and more vehicle squadrons, and maybe a new slot for flyers, rather than have them in a FA slot.

Lanacane
11-03-2014, 22:15
I'm not down with %s. I have a feeling it'll turn out more limiting than


I'd prefer that they just keep the FOC as is, but maybe increasing the mandatory troops requirement to 3 might change things up in a good way. I'd also like the ability to take lesser HQs as elites, and more vehicle squadrons, and maybe a new slot for flyers, rather than have them in a FA slot.


I find % is confusing enough in Fantasy. but it does work there. as you sometimes need lords to be 400pts or have 4 heroes.

Opening up to 25% in the HQ section can least to a spam on Inquisitors and other cheap hq's.


I do like you idea of raising the min troops to 3+

leopard
11-03-2014, 22:31
Suggestion, lifted from Battle Rider (ancient game from GDW), probably lifted in turn from elsewhere.

You build your army, no restrictions at all, to say 3,000 points. This is what you bring, each scenario occurs thus: determine what faction you are fighting and what the scenario is - which tells you your maximum force size. You now build an army by adding whole units only up to the specified size to fight that battle.

Rewards having some flexible units, some units of lower point values and makes it possible to have a few highly specialised units you won't often use.

You also don't need 3k of models, you just need to be aware of what you can;t take in parallel because of it - e.g. a marine squad with several special and heavy weapons options - features in your list two or three times but you can only actually use it once as you only have the models for it once.

Now if you know your are to fight in a built up area you would perhaps select a different force from one fighting in an open area. Also deals with "knights" and super heavies reasonably well, if the scenario permits them, or the enemy faction can take them you have the chance to include a counter that you won't otherwise use.

Ditch the FoC, its not needed under this system, have varied missions and you need a level of variation in your force pool to handle the different missions. Also allows someone who wants to run a pure tank list to have enough armour such that when they get a suitable mission they can do so.

Players know each others force pool when they build the list for a game, intelligence reports and so on of what is in the area, but not specifically what they will be facing.

Beppo1234
11-03-2014, 23:42
I do like you idea of raising the min troops to 3+

I would be surprise that GW hadn't raised the minimum needed to play yet for business sake, but for the fact that they should keep the minimum starter price for an HQ + 2 Troops as low as possible for each primary detachment faction.

Minsc
12-03-2014, 00:14
You should be encouraged to bring troops because you want them, not because you must bring them.

I think the current scenarios support this fine, since you actually want alot of troops in 4 of them.

ehlijen
12-03-2014, 01:24
You should be encouraged to bring troops because you want them, not because you must bring them.

I think the current scenarios support this fine, since you actually want alot of troops in 4 of them.

Indeed.

And in addition to that, I think, we should have tradeoffs that make support units good but also a mild liability that needs to be covered.

Right now too many specialist units act as better troops (often but not always sans scoring).