PDA

View Full Version : FOC: something got me thinking...



MegaPope
31-03-2010, 10:29
Heya.

This has been preying on my mind for a while...since the last discussion on here of the future of 40K army organisation.

The question is...why the limitation on Troops choices on the current FOC? It only seems to have acquired any sort of significance in 5th ed. with Troops only as truly scoring units. Yet quite a few people seem to still consider the need to take Troops as a sort of 'tax' on your army. But I generally like having a strong core of Troops to build the rest of my forces around.

I can understand the limits on all the other categories, but why the basis of your army? Surely points values alone should be enough to limit overall numbers?

Vermin-thing
31-03-2010, 10:38
Grey hunters in rhinos wreak tournaments...

MegaPope
31-03-2010, 11:38
Grey hunters in rhinos wreak tournaments...

The FOC has been the way it is since 3ed. Besides, you could say the same thin about a number of other different units.

What size are standard recommended tables? 6'x4'? Try playing on a 5' wide table if you can, but not altering the deployment zones. Makes a hell of a difference...

magicmonkey
31-03-2010, 13:33
my 350 strong grot army would be happy
and in 1500 you have 100 points of hq
351 models ftw

Leftenant Gashrog
31-03-2010, 18:03
GW is on record as saying that the cover save system was adopted so that players will play Space Marines properly: advancing fearlessly across the table in lieu of hiding in cover.

Given aforementioned Space Marine bias I suspect they went with 6 for Troops because thats how many Tactical squads a battle company has.

MegaPope
31-03-2010, 18:23
Yes, the FOC seems pretty much designed for a Space Marine Battle Company...just not for anything else ;)

Hmm...advancing fearlessly across open battlefields is for IDIOTS. And if that was GW's intention; well, it doesn't work anyway and everyone else still has to hug cover.

350 Grots? Now that'd be a sight to see :D. You can practically do that with Guard anyway if you're so inclined...

Bloodknight
31-03-2010, 18:25
Some troops are very good and they didn'T want to have too many of them in the FOC? No idea. I just remember how much I hated it with the 3.5 Chaos codex that didn't allow me to field 7 troops in my Deathguard which meant my Nurglings never got to see the field because of 4 PM squads and 2 units of Plague Bearers...

Culven
31-03-2010, 20:06
What size are standard recommended tables? 6'x4'? Try playing on a 5' wide table if you can, but not altering the deployment zones. Makes a hell of a difference...
Yeah, Tau can set up an additional 6" away from the enemy, for additional shooty goodness.

. . .play Space Marines properly: advancing fearlessly across the table in lieu of hiding in cover.
Of course they advance fearlessly, they are in their mobile pillboxes, I mean Rhinos.

LonelyPath
31-03-2010, 20:58
What size are standard recommended tables? 6'x4'? Try playing on a 5' wide table if you can, but not altering the deployment zones. Makes a hell of a difference...

Footslogging orks getting a Dawn of War deployment hate 5' wide tables. I seem to get that deployment nearly all the time when I take my footsloggers, yet then it's also objectives and tend to munch the enemy as it comes to me and Tau normally have more targets than they can really take out.

150+ models in a 1500 game is pretty nasty.

MegaPope
31-03-2010, 23:57
I used to play on 5' wide tables a lot. My old club hired a community centre and tables were that size as standard. It was interesting to say the least. One thing that we did find was that you could get away with having a lot of terrain on the table, as second or even third turn charges were pretty much impossible. Also, it was essential to provide enough cover so that a cross table advance could be made without it becoming a shooting gallery.

Overall, I found that table depth, rather than width, enabled greater freedom of movement, but I digress...

I just find the concept a bit odd. 40K uses, and has always used, a points based system to create armies. Yet the FOC imposes a further, apparently arbitary restriction on all forces, with little to no regard as to what it is applied to. My own view is that it is pretty much becoming obsolete. In some ways it lost a lot of its significance with the advent of 4ed, let alone 5ed, when the variant FOCs for different missions were dropped. Now there seem to be an increasing number of ways of circumventing the thing - heavy tank squadrons, shifting units from one category to another, some units being outside the FOC (Techmarines, Generic Lesser Daemon packs). The FOC is looking increasingly like a thing of the past...