Do we even need the FoC?

[DarkLink]

The BBB FOC is actually a FU to competition, because competition doesn't want players to bring the coolest toys to the table, whereas GW really wants to sell you lots of them.

They would sell soooo many riptides if they dropped the FOC.

[goldenS]

I think if they made it more flexible, then it would encourage more players to field more "realistic" armies, not all Space Marine Battle Companies, for example, will remain at 100 Marines after each conflict, especially on the tabletop!!!!!

[Lucidum]

The game as a whole would be much more fun and much less restrictive without the FoC. It would allow players to make fully themed armies, and would allow for tactics to be developed based on units you WANT to use over those you HAVE to use. It’d balance itself out, too. If somebody wanted to run an army made purely out of say…Chaos Obliterators, they’d have a small, elite force, but one which would suffer for every casualty the enemy managed to inflict. I’m not saying I’d run this army, but i’m saying that so called “overpowered” forces that could come about by doing away with the FoC could be balanced out by players using a more balanced force to overcome them.

[Charistoph]

Better to just offer more mission options with different setup and FOC options, missions for Armored Columns, Deep Strike only forces, Swamps where tracked vehicles can't enter and all non-flyers receive Stealth + Shrouded vs flyers etc...

Someone hire this person immediately.

I'd be up for that

Any scenario or amendment which increases variety is good for me

Yeah, and maybe they could put them in a book collection to make them easy to find. And also add them in to Supplements and Data Slates, too, so players can have scenarios for the new toys!

Oh, wait, they actually do have and do stuff like that...

The real challenge is getting people to WANT to play them. There is an odd mental thing in some where if it's not in the rulebook, it's not a proper mission, and unplayable. So, mission books get used for local tournaments at launch, and are rarely seen outside of preset games.

[John Bower]

Yeah, and maybe they could put them in a book collection to make them easy to find. And also add them in to Supplements and Data Slates, too, so players can have scenarios for the new toys!

Oh, wait, they actually do have and do stuff like that...

The real challenge is getting people to WANT to play them. There is an odd mental thing in some where if it's not in the rulebook, it's not a proper mission, and unplayable. So, mission books get used for local tournaments at launch, and are rarely seen outside of preset games.

Which is kind of sad really, GW have come up with some cracking missions, I created a generator that uses all the missions I have available to me. Something like 70+ right now

[Ezaviel]

I voted that the FOC is fine as it is. A bunch of chracters/HQs have an effect on it already (Master of the Forge, Belial, Chaos Lords with Marks, etc etc), so it is pretty flexible in many armies.

If there was no FOC, armies would get even more ridiculous than they already are. I don't want to face an army with unlimited slots for Riptides, or Heldrakes...

[deinol]

I think if they made it more flexible, then it would encourage more players to field more "realistic" armies, not all Space Marine Battle Companies, for example, will remain at 100 Marines after each conflict, especially on the tabletop!!!!!

I'm not really certain how that matters. You already have the ability to run squads with 5-10 men in it. If you have 7 guys in a squad, that means 3 bit the dust earlier.

I've been slowly working on making my full marine company. If it's a smaller battle, I'm likely to use a chaplain for command, since the captain or chapter master doesn't show up to ever skirmish in the battle line. I also like the way the FW campaign systems have ways to injure characters and limit how often they get played per phase.

[telegramsam70]

I love this idea.

[FlangeNabber]

Just thought of an interesting but slightly more balanced version of the 2 for 1 swapping of slots.

Try this - For every troop choice selected over the required 2 you can exchange 2 elite, fast or heavy slots for 1 additional slot in either of those 3 categories.
So if you took 5 troops and swapped out all elite and fast slots you could field 6 heavy choices for example

I think that reduces the possible abuse you could get with the straight 2 for one swapping while still adding a little flair to the existing force org chart?

[Baneblade]

WFB has a much better system. One character is required for a general, 25% min for core, 50% max for special and 25% max for rares, heroes and lord. In addition for special there is a cap of 3 duplicates of each unit, and 2 for rare choices. In addition there is minimum of 3 units.

This type of system would work well for 40k. Have your min 1 HQ and 25% troops. Then you could have a 50% cap for FA, Heavy, and elites. Put a duplicate limit for units of 2 or 3. That way there will not spamming Riptides or whatever, but still gives the flexibility for someone to go heavy support heavy, or whatever theme fits their style of play. It also eliminates people from finding the cheapest troop choice and running 2 bare min squads.