6.5/7th Edition and What GW Should have done

[Sainhann]

So yes GW is coming out with a change to 40K and one of the biggest changes is that players can for go using the FOC and build an Unbound army using whatever they have.

Now myself, I have hated the FOC ever since it came out.

Now many players are stating that the WAAC'ers will attempt to build nasty 5-6 Riptide or Hell Chicken armies.

Well yes they can but they won't really be all that good because while these units are hard they eat up a ton of points and can be destroyed.

Now I like that GW has made the choice of allowing players to dump the FOC.

But they do need to take this a little bit further so that they put a stop to the above type armies.

They should have the players make choices and put in percentages, like:

HQ's - no more than 20% of the total point value of the army
Elites - no more than 25% of the total point value of the army
Troops - Minimum 40% of the total point value of army needs to be troops
Fast Attack - no more than 25% of the total point value of the army
Heavy Support - no more than 25% of the total point value of the army

So with you are playing a 2000 point game the above would mean:

HQ's - no more than 400 points
Elites - no more than 500 points
Troops - Minimum of 800 points
Fast Attack - no more than 500 points
Heavy Support - no more than 500 points

So putting a minimum on the troops means that players will have to have at least 800 points which means they will only have 1200 points to spend on the rest of the choices.

I would really like a 50% minimum on troops but Min/Maxer's would scream bloody murder.

But if GW did this they would put a stop to anyone who wants to bring 6 x Riptides in their army. Because they just would be limited in the number of points that they could spend.

But GW did not done this and more than like will never do this.

So yes there will be players who will bring 6 Riptides to a battle and others will not want to play them since they unlike many of us really old 40K players (I started in 1989) just don't have the forces available to them to field an army that can beat those 6 Riptides.

[Power Klawz]

It would probably be more like 25% troop minimum, definitely nowhere near 50%. It would basically mirror fantasy. The problem being that most people playing today have modeled their collections, and therefore their possible army builds, off of the force organization chart and they really couldn't just drop the habit cold turkey, maybe you could speculate that "7th" is an interim step before getting rid of it since I've never really seen a benefit from it personally, but we won't know for a few more years at least.

[Crydon Games]

Having played in 2nd edition, I think getting rid of the FOC is a terrible idea. Perhaps some combination of percentage and FOC would work. I like the idea that in the upcoming edition players will be rewarded for following the FOC. In fact, though I am not an unconditional GW supporter, I like all of the changes that we have heard about for 7th. Go GW.

[Caitsidhe]

I'm still waiting to actually see the changes confirmed. I think the laws of unintended consequences aren't really being thought about too deeply because if the rumors are true, exactly as we have heard them, assault took it in the mouth even more than before. Hopefully there is a lot we haven't heard about yet because thus far all we have heard is that Overwatch has become even more deadly.

[DarkLink]

No, we've hear of several buffs to assault, namely that the difficult terrain penalty is much less harsh, and you can consolidate into new combats.

[daboarder]

No, we've hear of several buffs to assault, namely that the difficult terrain penalty is much less harsh, and you can consolidate into new combats.

I think caitsidhe means that the confirmed rules all seem to support shooting (excluding the difficult terrain penalty) whereas we still only have rumours that consolidation is back (god I hope so)

[Harley]

As if the FoC isn't currently broken in 6th edition as is. Allies allow you to generally make Hellchicken and Riptide spam armies as is.

[Sainhann]

It would probably be more like 25% troop minimum, definitely nowhere near 50%. It would basically mirror fantasy. The problem being that most people playing today have modeled their collections, and therefore their possible army builds, off of the force organization chart and they really couldn't just drop the habit cold turkey, maybe you could speculate that "7th" is an interim step before getting rid of it since I've never really seen a benefit from it personally, but we won't know for a few more years at least.

Thing is most forces should have more troops not less.

What the FOC did was allow gamers to take the bare Minimum in troops and then see what they could max out in HQ's, Elites, Fast Attack & Heavy.

So it brought about the age of Min/Max and there will be gamers who just might drop even the minimum two troops and will field those 6 Riptides or 6 Hell Chickens.

So the best way to stop them is to force them to take a minimum amount of troops and then have then make choices as to what else they can include.

Under what I stated above you could still get 500 points of Heavy support but if you do so you will be limited in what you can field from the remaining areas.

So you need to think balance and abilities of your units, so that your army can deal with what your opponents will bring.

So consider this type of force using Marines; a okay Commander, 4 or so Squads of Marines in Razorbacks, then 2-3 x Predators and 3-4 x Whirlwinds with minimal upgrades plus take some Ratling Snipers as allies like around 4 Squads worth of them.

Think is unit points cost of around 150-200 points. Oh and Whirlwinds or far cheaper now so you might want to consider taking 5-6 of them. Predators base cost went up but if you keep at just their base cost you can get several of them.

- - - Updated - - -

I think caitsidhe means that the confirmed rules all seem to support shooting (excluding the difficult terrain penalty) whereas we still only have rumours that consolidation is back (god I hope so)

Looks like it is but the unit you move into still might be able to use its Overwatch shooting.

But if you know the distance that a unit can move after close combat all you need to do is keep your units farther apart so that they have nothing to consolidate into.

[Caitsidhe]

I think caitsidhe means that the confirmed rules all seem to support shooting (excluding the difficult terrain penalty) whereas we still only have rumours that consolidation is back (god I hope so)

Yes, exactly this. The only confirmed (as confirmed as anything can be) rumors support shooting. I have heard rumors that the combat consolidation is in and I've heard another rumor (just as reliable) that it is NOT. We can't really judge the rules without seeing all of them. I am merely commenting on the fact that I really hope there are some nice options thrown to assault, because so far I'm not seeing anything but net for shooting armies.

Any BS-4 Army hits Snapshots on a 5+. This favors Marines and Eldar rather than Tau (thank God) as I don't believe their Marker Lights hang around for the other guy's turn. The change is nice enough for me (being CSM) particularly when combined with various sources of Twin-Link. That is beside the point, Eldar didn't really need more help with their shooting. We will have to play it by ear, but it suffices to say that hitting with 1 out of 3 shots on Overwatch is better than 1 out of 6. It also ends the reign of Flyer terror. *A caveat people haven't been talking about is that an Unbound force can load up on cheap Quad Guns too. In fairness, BS-3 and less see no effective difference in the new rule and the old one.

So far the only rumor we have heard that even remotely helps assault is the contested one saying consolidation into combat may be back. That would be great if true, but it doesn't solve the problem we already have, namely that getting into combat in the first place seems almost entirely limited to Flying Monstrous Creatures and really fast, tough Greater Daemons. We can HOPE that more durable vehicles will help, but unless they have altered that horrible rule which says an assault vehicle cannot disembark its passengers if it moved over 6"... well I'm sure you see my point. It is getting into combat in the first place which is proving to be a problem.

[Tyrendian]

one thing I'm kinda worried about is that the changes to snap-shots may make some fliers completely crappy - like the Eldar ones (not that they'd been great to begin with, but the Crimson Hunter was usable at least, especially with all the potential reserve modifications ensuring it came when you wanted it to). Now, they just die to Marine and Eldar forces like it's nothing, and even their AA capabilities aren't needed any more...