Do we even need the FoC?

[Mr Mystery]

Afternoon.

Title is the question. The FoC. Do we really need it?

Originally, back in 3rd Ed, it was introduced to ensure people didn't completely min-max as they did in 2nd Ed. Yeah that didn't really work. Over time, the FoC itself has been largely let be, but the scenarios and scoring unit rules have be tightened up.

And I now question whether the FoC is really needed at all. Consider the average army that you see. Even the cheesiest of cheesey forces include a decent selection of scoring units, regardless of their source (usually Troops of some kind, occasionally other units granted scoring status by a SC or other rule). This because you need to take and hold objectives to actually win the game, unless you plan on an all out 'wipe out my opponent every time' strategy.

Because of this, I'm starting to find the FoC a wee bit restrictive. After all, some people really like their big guns, and will take 3 heavy support choices, and not take Fast Attack. Others the opposite, and indeed everything in between. Yet those slots you don't use, they just sit there, unfilled, whilst the restricted access to those you do favour see certain units crop up time and again, whether through personal preference, or a unit being perceived to be better than it's competitors in the same slot.

And this to me doesn't really match up with what GW want the game to be. Jervis has said on numerous occasions they're not that into artifical restrictions, such as making a given unit 0-1 per army (SC excluded for obvious reasons!).

So what if we played without the FoC completely? I feel the design of the missions, and the fact that you select your army, then determine the mission being played is self enforcing restriction enough when coupled with the traditional points system.

But what do you reckon? And yes, sod it, I'm going to make this a poll!

[Wolfshade]

Yes.

People had the flexibility of including troops in their armies previously (or what we now recognise as troops) but did not do so because they were not as cost effective as elites or HQs.

I still face armies that regularly that include 2 minmum sized troops of the cheapest variety open to the army and their job is to skulk at the back of the field and claim the home objectives, while the rest of the army isnt about the mission, it is about tabling the opponent, or removing their troops so that they can only try and contest.

I think in terms of balance their needs to be a reason to take tactical squads over terminators. After all, a 5 man squad of "hammernators" (I hate that term) is highly resilent, more so than it's equivalent of Tactical Marines or Scouts.

I think the whole point of the FoC is that it is difficult and forces challenges otherwise you would have people that just field as many of X (where X is in their opinion the best/most cost effective option in the respective codex) as they can.

Can you imagine an army of Tau facing against an army of BA Vanguard Vets? Each unit arriving by an heroic intervention? The advantage of shooting by Tau is completely undone as each unit is then just locked in combat.

[Darren Richardson]

Yes we need the chart, but it could be improved upon....

How I see it players who don't like certain types of troop choice such as fast attack,heavy etc, they are limited in what they can take so many will be forced to take a second FoC detachment to make up the numbers (this really applies to Treadheads strongly I notice).

I would like to see an option where you can trade in two unused FoC slots for one slot in a different catagory, for example say I want a fast moving army geared up with fast attack options and I don't want to use heavy slow units, I decided to trade in two heavy support slots to take another fast attack, I then trade the remaining heavy slot and one elite to take another fast attack slot.

as a result I would then have 5 fast attacks plus my HQ and Troops, giving me a fast moving rapid response force....

I really think such an option can and would work.

[gwensdad]

I voted "Flexible" just because I like the idea of characters "unlocking" the ability to make something that's normally in FOC slot X into slot Y.

[Daredevil]

I could actually live with a more restrictive FOC. Not an option in your poll, Observer bias?

Something more akin to Fantasy where you must spend x% on Troops.

I play in a meta wherein people seem to take minimal squads of troops to scrape by. In a mission with more than two objectives I'm at an advantage from the start.

It's just my opinion of course.

[ElectricPaladin]

I agree that the FOC could be more interesting and that rules to vary it in nifty ways could be more common, but I don't think it's something the game could survive without. Warhammer is intended to be a command-and-control game, not just nasty elites with tons of dice slaughtering each other. Unless 40k leaves all seriousness behind and decides to become a bloody shoot-em-up and nothing more, the FOC is going to be an important part of the game.

[Tyrendian]

I agree that the FOC could be more interesting and that rules to vary it in nifty ways could be more common, but I don't think it's something the game could survive without. Warhammer is intended to be a command-and-control game, not just nasty elites with tons of dice slaughtering each other. Unless 40k leaves all seriousness behind and decides to become a bloody shoot-em-up and nothing more, the FOC is going to be an important part of the game.

then again, Warmahordes does just fine without one... due to the very different structure of the armies themselves, to be sure, but still...
removing the FOC would need a major overhaul of the entire ruleset, and should that happen there´s no way to tell how well it´ll all work out just now... so my vote goes to "it´s fine as it is" (for the current ruleset)

[ElectricPaladin]

then again, Warmahordes does just fine without one... due to the very different structure of the armies themselves, to be sure, but still...

WarmaHordes is also a very different game that plays on a totally different scale. I don't think that the two are comparable.

[Gleipnir]

Voted more flexible in the sense that I would love to see more missions offered that use different FOC options, similar to Siege Missions, Planetstrike, City of Death, Escalation offerings. Maybe change the table up for more Fast Attack for a larger 8' x 4' play area board, More Heavy Support on a board with less terrain saturation etc.. The stock missions would really need to justify the changes to FOC though or as Wolfshade said it just becomes about tabling your opponent using minimum scoring options required.

[Mr.Pickelz]

I vote Flexible, Due to how the Ork Codex is set up, with Wazzdakka and Zhadsnark making Bikerz troops, and Warboss' making Nobz troops, Big meks with their Deff Dreads, etc...Also it's a good note that the Ork codex is pretty balanced, it's showing its age, but overall the book has good units in all categories, even if there are options that are ignored (Flash Gitz) the entire FOC can be utilized whether for fluff or competitive play. If newer books could manage this then I think a flexible FOC (characters unlocking things) would be the way to go.