New Force Organisation Idea.

I have been thinking. Change the FOC to a % system like fantacy. Do you think it would work?

HQ 0-25%
Troops 25%+
Elite 0-25%
Fast Atack 0-25%
Heavy Support 0-25%
Allies 0-25%

Play with the numbers. As for allies that will cover things like Tau with Auxileries, IG with Space Marines, IG with Inquisition, Craftworld Eldar with Croneworld Eldar, Chaos Marines with Chaos Daemons and so on.

We would need a chart.

Oh and Allies would hae to be limites somehow. Like no HQs and the such.

On the other hand I'd kind of like to see the FOC done away with. I prefer the way datasheets work. It would be better to use a number of preset datasheet type organizations. Something like Apocalypse or Spearhead. I'd like to see the codexes constructed for that sort of use.

I feel it represents battle better then the traditional FOC. It just requires the enemy to plan to deal with more. You can't really plan for "They'll probably have a few units of infantry and a good bit of armor with some commanders so I'll need ________." You end up with "Gargh its an armored company." or "So many Gaunts...." *dead*

I like the unexpected. It makes things more desperate and allows units that are well rounded to show how well rounded they are. A kitted out squad of marines can gun down infantry, bring the ruckus against tanks, brawl with monstrous creatures, and generally force multiply. On the other hand Eldar should rely on fragile units that need to be used with a bit more skill. Sure they murder things brutally, but your Dire Avengers are going to get their ass handed to them by a group of tanks. On the other hand they'll carve through guard so efficiently you'd cry. Eldar are a gamble that should dominate or struggle based on what they run into. Marines should be able to grind their way through things through their resilience and disciplined fire.

Ideally? Like Col Tartleton I think there should be a wide choice of variant FoC's dependent on army, scenario etc etc.

What I like about slots is that it allows you to shift investment into areas you want to focus on. Therefore you could have a White Scars army from a standard Marine army list. %ages makes that a little harder as it imposes a slightly tighter restriction.

Another idea is to drop the FOC (but keep the classifications) outside of a commander and a troop choice. Then have a dual system of bidding. Lowest bidder (in points) gets more in game benefits. Once the points ratio gets above a certain amount, scenario objectives kick in.

A final idea is to drop points limits altogether for some scenarios and opt for a pre-written FOC chart. Again, if there is an imbalance in the points used then certain objectives kick in.

I really like the Colonel's idea, but that sounds ridiculously hard to balance.

If we keep some form of FOC, I'd like to see a more literal translation from fantasy.

Example....

High Commander (0%-25%)
- Chapter Master; Chief Librarian; High Chaplain; High Techmarine; Chief Apothecary; Company Captain

Supporting Commanders (0%-25%)
- Champion; Librarian; Chaplain; Techmarine; Apothecary

Core (25%+)
- Tactical Squad

Special (0%-25%)
- Scout Squad; Assault Squad; Devastator Squad; Land Speeder Squadron; Bike Squadron; Predator; Dreadnought

Rare (0%-25%)
- Veteran Squad; Terminator Squad; Land Raider; Whirlwind; Vindicator; Attack Bike Squadron

So re-clasifieing everything. I think Special would then be 0-50% and everything else the same. Each codex could have subtle differences if needed. Like nids could be divided in to Small Bugs, Medium Bugs, Large Bugs and Huge Bugs for instance.

Hi folks.
I agree a 'non function specific' classification would be more sensible.As rarity is more important to force composition than unit function IMO.

May I propose the following classifications.

High Command unit(0 to 25%).

Command unit.(0 to 25%)

Standard units.(25% minimum.)

Specialised units.(0 to 50%)

Restricted units. (0 to 25%)

Then for each codex , the classifacation of units could change depending on the senario.

Eg
For an 'Assault mission' ,Assault marines could become 'standard units',specialised for a 'encounter' and restricted for a 'defencive' mission.

Eg the rarity of the unit type depends upon the mission type being undertaken.

If we simply use 'attack' 'encounter' and 'defencive' as broad catagories of mission types with 3 seperate calssifications of unit rarity in each case.

I hope you understand what I mean, I have not explained it tht well...

TTFN
Lanrak.

I get it fully. Using the example above;

Assult Marines would be a compulsory option in an Attacker role in an Attacker Defender mission.

They would be restricted if they where defending.

And would be specialised otherwise.

I kind of like it, but I do have a consern in that you need to know what roll you will be playing befor the game. This will make pick up games alittle longer to set up and I have no idea how it would pan out in a toruament. You would have to bring 3 lists or somthing. I am also thinking that Restricted should always be Restricted, and therefor units would be specailised and would have a keyword for when they become standard. Could be put in the type catagory like; Type: Infantry, Assult.

Apart from that. I like it.

What I do love is the change for Rare to Restricted. It not like Land Raiders are as hard to come by as finding and rearing a dragon so you can ride it, but more that you have to convince some one that it is nessecery to take to the battle. They are not going to give to everyone even if they could. Brillient.

Essentially each army would have its own guidelines. I like that.

Marines would play into a sort of Fantasy set up:

Lords: Ie Chapter Master or Master of the Forge
Heroes: Ie Commander or Apothecary

Core: Tacticals, Scouts, Assaults, etc.
Special: Sternguard, Vanguard, etc.
Rare: Storm Ravens, Venerable Dread, etc.
Allies: Legion of the Damned, Deathwatch, Grey Knights, etc.

Orks may have:

Bosses: Big Mek, Warboss, etc.
Nobs: Nobs, Flashgits, etc.
Boyz: 'Ardboyz, Slugga Boyz, etc.
Puny Gits: Gretchin, etc.
Gubbinz: Dreads, Tanks, etc.

You could just have every unit included in a Datasheet - sure, there would be a lot of Datasheets, but the benefits seem worth it to me.

Some Datasheets would be flexible eg Space Marine Tactical Squads - 1-4 squads of Space Marines with the option of weaponry and transports.

Some Datasheets would be very rigid - eg Eldar Spiders' Snare - 0-2 Pathfinder squads with 2-4 Warp Spider squads and 1-3 Nightspinners.

The Space Marine Datasheet would be capable of being anti-armour, anti-infantry or anti-MC, or a mixture of both, but would be 'masters of none', if you like. The Eldar Datasheet would be incredibly efficient at killing hordes of infantry - Pathfinder squads 'mark' them and possibly Pin them, Warp Spiders use Template Deathspinners etc to shred them/pin them and the Nightspinners just obliterate them. Against tanks, however, there is very little chance of doing any damage at all, like Col. Tartleton's idea.

And while yes, most people would probably run a more balanced Datasheet some may take a few sheets and cover bases. While all anti infantry sheets would get squashed by armor and all anti armor sheets would get clobbered by infantry, you could take always take a limited form of both.

Mr "I'm a treadhead" will plonk down his three Baneblades with a smug look on his face and then find out your 300 orks have melta bombs... He'll learn the lesson every commander learns:

Tanks without Supporting Infantry to cover their drawbacks get blown up.

Col. Tartleton wrote:

Tanks without Supporting Infantry to cover their drawbacks get blown up.

Unless they are previous edition Falcons with Holofields...

Datasheets within datasheets within datasheets.

SeaSwift wrote:

Col. Tartleton wrote:

Tanks without Supporting Infantry to cover their drawbacks get blown up.

Unless they are previous edition Falcons with Holofields...

Eldar are supposed to be special... and in a perfect world they will pay through the nose for their ability to smugly glare down their nose at you.