Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online

 

Warhammer 40K Forum

FoC for 40K: What 'should' it be
Reply
Old 30 Jun 2010, 18:35   #1 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NS Canada
Posts: 621
Default FoC for 40K: What 'should' it be

Sitting around with other 40K and WHFB friends alike, we began to talk about what the ideal FoC would be. The instigating event being the new percentage based system being implemented by WHFB in its new edition.

40K though has slots still, and the number of slots taken is important, it contributes to KP and scoring units. The idea thrown around for what 'should' be ideal was a maxed FoC being a complete army. I keep saying 'should' because that alone has to be defined. Should implies that the current system is somehow flawed, or inferior. Our idea of of the optimal competitive level FoC would be a 2000 point army that equally (some more equally than others) uses each FoC slot. It would be balanced, difficult to target prioritize, and would probably reflect well with fluff as well.

This of course would not necessarily make a good army in the current edition as ~17 kill points in 2000 points would be somewhat weak. I say 17 as there are 2 HQ, 6 troops, 3 Fast attack, 3 Elites, and 3 Heavy Support. under this ideal system there would be 17 units, each containing around 115 points (45 left over).

So for an example I'll use marines. (this is all from memory, the overall thought is what I am going for anyways)

Chaplain, Jump pack
Librarian in terminator armour

Sternguard
(break the rules once for)
5 terminators with heavy flamer (librarian goes with)

5 scouts with Sniper Rifles and camo cloaks x2
10xtactical marines x2 with rhinos. one has powerfist and meltagun, other power sword and flamer. In this case the Rhinos are included as 'troop' selections and averaged with the tacsquad they carry.

2xland speeders with heavy bolters
2xAttack bikes with multimeltas
5x assault marines with 2 flamers sarge with power weap (chaplain goes with)

Dreadnought with assault Cannon
Predator with autocannon
Thunderfire cannon

Now this army isn't great (in comparison to some Special character spam or something), but I think its pretty balanced and if you saw it fielded it would be somewhat difficult to say "Oh that unit is the big enemy unit I have to deal with". Everything is broken into roughly equally valuable squads, so this also makes the loss of a unit not very damning overall.

We then briefly theorized several other lists (for Eldar and Tyranids, because that what we play collectively) that when fielded seemed very reasonable and would make for a good game.

I was interested to hear other opinions on if this is really fair. Basically the idea that we like locally is that an army at 2000 points or higher, an army would have roughly equal points for each slot, and would have every slot filled. As well, we are all biased against the use of special characters, and care little if we are now unable to field Mephiston. In fact we see his exclusion as this modification auto-balancing the list. He would only be included if his fraction of HQ was near his point value, making the point value of the army large, which we figured would be true only for a battle in which Mephiston's presence would ACTUALLY be required (not some 1000 point drop-in-the-bucket engagement on planet X).
__________________
Alright Blood Angels, who wants to play pin the Tau on the carnifex!
Sau1us is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 Jun 2010, 19:34   #2 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 18,087
Default Re: FoC for 40K: What 'should' it be

I would certainly like to see the limitations on duplicate units make it over to 40k, just to finish off those ridiculous BoLS-style unit spam lists.
khanaris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 Jun 2010, 20:41   #3 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Diego, California, North America, Earth
Posts: 1,069
Send a message via AIM to Unusualsuspect Send a message via MSN to Unusualsuspect
Default Re: FoC for 40K: What 'should' it be

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khanaris
I would certainly like to see the limitations on duplicate units make it over to 40k, just to finish off those ridiculous BoLS-style unit spam lists.
What sort of duplicate are you talking about here? Identical wargear/numbers, or type, or what?
__________________
I you private dancer.
Unusualsuspect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 Jun 2010, 20:44   #4 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,958
Default Re: FoC for 40K: What 'should' it be

The spreadsheet I use to create my army lists calculates a percentage of points in each force org slot. I put it in there for my own use and because it's so easy to do with a spreadsheet, but I like that it's there. It shows me at a glance if I have a list that is particularly unbalanced, and I consider it a small point of pride that my lists almost always have Troops as the highest percentage (although I have to give the ridiculously expensive warfish builds partial credit for that). There is a cheeziness test around here somewhere that deals with force org percentages, and I have seen (although never played) some old tournament scenarios where the bonus points are awarded based on sensible list balance. Basically, I like the idea although I have no clue how to implement it.
knightperson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 Jun 2010, 20:45   #5 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 18,087
Default Re: FoC for 40K: What 'should' it be

More than two of the same entry, regardless of numbers or equipment. Although 40k being what it is, I would say four of the same entry in Troops, two of the same entry in Elites, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support, and no duplicates in HQ. Obviously this doesn't work for a lot of the current codexes, but I like what it does for Fantasy armies.
khanaris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 Jun 2010, 20:53   #6 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Diego, California, North America, Earth
Posts: 1,069
Send a message via AIM to Unusualsuspect Send a message via MSN to Unusualsuspect
Default Re: FoC for 40K: What 'should' it be

Thanks for the clarification, Khanaris. That seems reasonable.
__________________
I you private dancer.
Unusualsuspect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01 Jul 2010, 00:03   #7 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,045
Default Re: FoC for 40K: What 'should' it be

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unusualsuspect
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khanaris
I would certainly like to see the limitations on duplicate units make it over to 40k, just to finish off those ridiculous BoLS-style unit spam lists.
What sort of duplicate are you talking about here? Identical wargear/numbers, or type, or what?
Probably something like this:
[spoiler]
please note this is more of a... holy crap this is legal? more than a I'm ever going to build it one day type of list... or if I did it'd be more for the novelty than normal friendly play.
[armylist]61.82[/armylist]
[/spoiler]
Nezalhualixtlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01 Jul 2010, 06:45   #8 (permalink)
Shas'El
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In my Killkrooza, headin' for Earth!
Posts: 3,866
Default Re: FoC for 40K: What 'should' it be

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khanaris
I would certainly like to see the limitations on duplicate units make it over to 40k, just to finish off those ridiculous BoLS-style unit spam lists.
That would be the complete end of all my armies :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khanaris
More than two of the same entry, regardless of numbers or equipment. Although 40k being what it is, I would say four of the same entry in Troops, two of the same entry in Elites, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support, and no duplicates in HQ. Obviously this doesn't work for a lot of the current codexes, but I like what it does for Fantasy armies.
Err, fantasy & duplicated, what're you talking about? :sadnshocked:
jimmy_mymail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 Jul 2010, 06:03   #9 (permalink)
Kroot Shaper
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 87
Default Re: FoC for 40K: What 'should' it be

as a core, it would probably be better to have a squad or team leader and one compliment of troops, and the HQ as an optional choice.

It would add more flexibility to an army in general. You don't see a commander with every squad, regiment, and division, so why should we have it in this game? having a team leader with a squad makes more sense than a high ranking commander.
Froenx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On