Losing Force Organisation

[BrainFireBob]

I don't see why not.



! don't believe that, 500 pts for your elites is fine. The point of such a system is limit Elites, so that they do truly represent their rare nature. I also don't think anyone would argue with less transports, considering all the complaints about parking lot armies and Razorspam.



Which goes against the whole purpose of why a unit is placed in eites in the first place, it's not supposed to be a common unit, unlike the lists you described which tend to view Troops as an elite unit due to being taken as more of an afterthought.

I also do not hear any WFB players complaining about higher point games either.



Again I don't see how it would affect it, even with your post. WoC players are consistently outnumbered by opponent armies, yet are quite powerful because of their stats. There is a balance there. I see no reason why it can't work for 40K, as it did for WFB.





Fast Attacks aren't more elite than Troops, and Elites more elite than Fast Attacks? How is that not the case?




Agreed.




I dispute that. The fact that Tacticals are fairly common compared to Assaults is striking ( 6 vs 2 per company), and the fact that Termies are even more rare than Assaults is also true. The same goes for Empire Swordsmen, when compared to Greatswords and Steam Tanks. So again, how is it based on function instead of rarity?




Compared to the highly negative restrictions we now deal with thanks to the FOC chart.




I dispute that. I think it would make it easier to build such armies.




I dispute that also. I don't think any change is required cosmetically. It only requires looking at what the organizations means, which is a philosophical change only.





Again I dispute that, and could be handled with simple FAQs, much like the High Elves were handled.





Armies get invalidated every edition change, that's nothing new. It's not like it hasn't happened before. Just talk to an Iron Warriors Chaos player about the changes brought by the switch from 3.5 to 4th ed codexes.




No it isn't that bad, it's a downright horrible mechanic that has served well past it's time, and desperately needs to be changed.

False premise- you begin with the assumption that Elites are Elite because they're rare.

Two kinds of units are rolled into Elites in 40K:

1) Rare units
2) Specialist units.

Your narrow focus points to your only thinking of certain armies.

[althathir]

I think we may be at crossed terms here. My part in this discussion is not to create fixes for upcoming codex books to match them to what current books can do now, but rather to discuss a fix that could be applied to ALL the books as written. Kinda a house rule situation. Allowing all armies to create lists such as what can be achieved in grey knights would not balance the game as a whole, and ideally those lists would be restricted too, but being in the codex now it's too late.

The ideal for every army would be to have an all-comers list, that has an even chance of winning AND LOSING against any other list. The problem is that there is too little restriction on min-maxing units or going all-elite with units that some armies would be best not bothering to deploy at all. Sure such lists can be fun, and I love a terminator themed army from time to time, but I only ever do so with permission from my opponent allowing him to compensate, because it is not a balanced list.

Taking the very minimum core but maxing on other choices is not in the spirit of the FOC even if allowable by the freedom it provides. Freedom of choice is good, but nothing should be abused. Spamming of choices makes for boring games at times, and mech lists against an army with no anti-tank weaponry is another that becomes boring to the unlucky opponent. Now I'm not saying it's the fault of one player or the other there, as every list should contain a balance of anti-infantry and anti-tank weaponry just in case, but I wanted to highlight yet again that many players do not build balanced lists. Whilst not solving every iteration of a power list, an altered FOC would help in some regard.

Taking the minimum core should somehow make you have to take a minimum of elite and other choices. The unlocking idea already mentioned seems a good way to keep a force with the warriors expected of it - eg most marine forces should include some tacticals, orks some boyz and so on. Any elite lists made should be for special scenarios or pre-arranged games and not the norm - unfortunatley this is what people have come to expect.

Taking an elite army because your opponent does so is in my opinion the wrong way to solve the balance issue - that sounds a lot like the cold war to me, which was a terrible waste of money, which is what buying an army to match other elites would be because the games would be down to army selection and simple dice rolling and not tactics and become boring.

I think you'd need to look at an entirely new system to try and accomplish that, If anything I think percentages & the FoC both push min-maxing. The only ideal off the top of my head is some sort of tiered list system like warmachines where constructing a "fluffy" force provides additional benefits that also happen to scale up with game size.

I know what would fix the game. Make dedicated transports take up a force org slot. Expand the Force Org a bit to keep it fair. Perhaps 8 troops, 4 each of Elite, FA. Keep HS the same. 3HQ's would be okay too.

I don't see how that fixes things.... at all. There are 3 dedicated transports that are good enough that they need to be nerfed, chimeras, rhinos, & razorbacks. Nerfing firing points, and making units have to disembark to score (and scoring on more turns then just the last one) bring them in line in a hurry. Your solution hurts other fractions a lot more than the armies that need to be brought back in line IMO.

[Chivs]

Ask yourselves exactly what it is you're looking for in an alternative to the Force Organisation chart. Are you looking to open the possibilities to new builds/forces? Are you looking for ways to restrict current armies and stop some being so prevalent? Do you want to stop the same unit being taken multiple times in someone's army, and if so why? Or just simply fed up of running out of slots in a particular category?

If we're talking about a revamp to the system, we shouldn't limit ourselves to making a change here and nowhere else. So no responses of "Yeah, but now this army is allowed it's uber unit of doom ad infinitum..." If a unit is broken or undercosted, then that needs FIXING! Not simply working around it.

Opening up Different Armies:

Many veterans of 2nd Ed remember the sheer number of options that were in the Squads section of an armies codex. Space Marines could take their Tactical, Assault, Devastator, Terminator, Veteran, and Bike Squads as part of their 'minimum' requirements. All Terminator Armies were possible from any chapter, not just Dark Angels. Assault Companies could be fielded by all, not just Blood Angels. The Dark Angels even had their Landspeeders and Attackbikes included as Squads, as (virtually) the only difference between them and Codex: Ultramarines (No need to message me the full list angry readers; I'm aware of it and don't feel the need to show it here). Ork boyz squads from different clans could be equipped differently, giving you Ork Nobz, Goff Scarboyz, Evil Sunz Bikers, Blood Axe Kommandos, Bad Moon Special Weapon Squads, Deffskull Heavy Weapon Squads, Gretchin and Stormboyz. I could go on with Chaos, Tyranids and Sisters of Battle, but won't.

I only ever played against one person in 2nd Ed (My brother), so maybe I was secluded from armies of doom. But a player could build a list however they wanted. The sheer variety of builds that can come out of a single codex really could mean that no two armies are the same.

Currently:

The Force Organisation chart clearly is designed to provide a 'balanced' army, that is not overbearing in any one area. Many armies only have two choices (maybe less? Don't think so now that Necrons have been remade), and these aren't always the most glamourous of choices. They're not supposed to be the greatest troops in an army, but they certainly shouldn't feel like a tax that a player has to field. I don't feel that way about Ork Boyz squads, and feel that they are a terrific choice in an Ork army, and do make a solid backbone. I don't (personally) feel that way about Tactical squads, as I feel that they are a generic squad in a game designed for specialists.
As well as this, why are some units in the sections that they are? Why are Ork Lootas (ordinary boyz with heavy weapons) in the Elite Section whilst Flash Gitz (Nobs with Assault Weapons) are Heavy Support? Why are Sentinels Fast Attack in an Imperial Guard Army, but War Walkers are Heavy Support for the Eldar? Why are Assault Marines Troops for a Blood Angels army, but Fast Attack for any other Space Marine Chapter?

The ‘Only troops are scoring’ rule should also go. It was attempted as a fix to make Troops doable, but doesn’t make sense. Why can’t a devastator squad, or a Grot Mortar battery hold an objective, but their identical counterparts (but without the guns) can?
Problem is, the game is designed to provide a conflict between vulnerable vehicle squadrons, and taking them separately and losing multiple slots. Without a slot limit (e.g. Apocalypse), there is no point at all taking vehicle squadrons. The game mechanics would need to change (e.g. units splitting fire) to counter this.

Maybe if you are going to keep this type of system, unlocking is a good answer. I’d prefer it if it was through ordinary characters, rather than special characters. I don’t even think it does need to be limited to only 1 in all cases. Maybe there could be a limit on only one ‘unlock’ though. You can make Terminators troops with a terminator captain, or bike squads with a captain on a bike, but not both.
Spamming:
Final point. Why does taking the same unit more than once need to be a bad thing? An Imperial Guard army should be able to be all mechanised, or all airborne without anyone calling foul. A Space Marine army should be able to be deploy exclusively by drop pod, and people be awed by a cohesive theme. If particular units are ‘spammed’ because they are far too cost effective or over powered, then the unit should be changed. There shouldn’t be a stigma that the same unit repeatedly is terrible, or unfluffy.
The problem is this won’t happen. Games Workshops attitude is that fixes to broken units are made in books for future armies though, or future editions.

[timdp]

Percentages could work, slots could work, other limits could work, but a free for all? Not with GW balance.

This is what it ultimately comes down to. If GW was even remotely competent at coming up with balanced point values for units, the FOC/percentages rules fudge would probably not be necessary. There would be no cheese IF the unit points were balanced. Undercosted units generate multiple repeat spam and overcosted units don't get used, no matter how fluffy they are.

[DYoung]

This is what it ultimately comes down to. If GW was even remotely competent at coming up with balanced point values for units, the FOC/percentages rules fudge would probably not be necessary. There would be no cheese IF the unit points were balanced. Undercosted units generate multiple repeat spam and overcosted units don't get used, no matter how fluffy they are.

I agree with this.

I feel like GW is using the FOC system (be it slot, percentage or otherwise based) as a prop to avoid the altogether more time/effort consuming (but ultimately most satisfactory) task of designing a game that is inherently balanced yet also reflects the background that they have written for it.