AoD FOC discussion

[Nehekhare]

continuing the rules debate from http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292035-basic-hh-tactics/?p=3724879

 

1. are legion crusade lists allowed to use the standart combined arms/allied detachment rules from the brb?

 

2. can two or more Age of Darkness Detachments be used in a single army?

 

3. What level of alliance do 40k and 30k armies have?

 

my stance:

 

1. yes. Battles in the Age of Darkness is an expansion to the 40k rules and offer optional FOCs to be used in battle-forged armies as per the brb army composition rules, while the Legion Crusade Army list is a codex like any other. In fact, the BitAoD rules are a sub-category of the 40k army composition rules. The core rulebook explitily states how FOCs other than combined arms/allied should be handled (no benefits other than those listed).

 

2. yes, as the rule restriciting this (LACAL p.8) refers to an outdated 6th ed. army composition rule that does no longer exist.

 

3. none (exept for word bearers with a certain Rite of War and daemons). They cannot be mixed unless there are rules for it, so we'll have to wait for a FAQ. As a houserule, using astra militarum as imperial army would be totally okay with me personally, though. 

 

 

[Moonstalker]

 

 

1. are legion crusade lists allowed to use the standart combined arms/allied detachment rules from the brb?

 

Only under very specific circumstances.  Page 164 of Massacre directs players to use the FOC out of the main rulebook for games under 1750 points.  For 1750 points to 3000, you are directed to use the Age of Darkness Force Organisation Chart.  For games over 3000 points, the rulebook directs you to use Apocalypse rules.

 

When fighting 40k forces, the Betrayal FAQ directs you to either have both forces use the Age of Darkness FOC, or use standard 40k rules - players' choice.  However, it advises against allowing the Legion to use the AoD FOC while the xenos opponent does not.

 

 

 

 

2. can two or more Age of Darkness Detachments be used in a single army?

 

No, because the AoD FOC is not a detachment but an entirely separate method of arranging a FOC, with a Primary Detachment specific to the AoD FOC.  The AoD FOC is not a subset of Battleforged.

 

Battleforged FOC

Can combine any number of detachments and must designate one as the primary:

-Combined Arms Detachment: 1-2 HQ, 0-3 Elites, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 FA, 0-3 HS, 0-1 Fortification, 0-1 Lord of War

-Allied Detachment: 1 HQ, 0-1 Elites, 1-2 Troops, 0-1 FA, 0-1 HS (cannot be primary)

-Others as available

 

Battles in the Age of Darkness FOC

Must take:

-Primary Detachment: 1-3 HQ, 0-4 Elites, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 FA, 0-3 HS

May take one of each:

-Allied Detachment: 1 HQ, 0-1 Elites, 1-2 Troops, 0-1 FA, 0-1 HS

-Fortification Detachment: 0-1 Fortification

-Lord of War Detachment: 1 Primarch or 1 SHV >9 HP or 1-2 SHV <9 HP or 1-3 Flyers etc

 

Massacre is very clear on the matter.  "Games using the Battles in the Age of Darkness rules expansion use one of a number of potential Force Organisation charts present on pages 166-167...The standard is the Battles in the Age of Darkness Force Organisation chart, which offers the widest degree of flexibility and should be considered the standard form of play while using this rules expension."

 

I believe the BRB is also equally clear.  While a Battleforged FOC allows you to take multiple combined arms, allied, or other detachments you still can only take detachments for your Battleforged army that are legally available.  "There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include and you can use any mixture of Detachments you have available."  Massacre spells out when the Age of Darkness Primary Detachment is available, and it isn't when playing a Battleforged army.  It is when playing an army using the Age of Darkness FOC.

 

 

 

 

3. What level of alliance do 40k and 30k armies have?

 

I'm essentially in agreement here.  You could use IG as IA until rules for them come out, as far as I'm concerned, and slot them into the AoD Allies table, and Daemons are, of course, Allies to some Word Bearers forces.  But that's as far as it goes.

 

The question should be, "Can you ally a 30k army with itself?"  To which I believe the answer is no.  The Age of Darkness Allies Table in Betrayal does not even list armies as "Sworn Brothers" with each other.

[Dorrance]

What will be interesting is what and if any big tournaments allow 30k and what they rule. I know BAO polls closed but I don't know if 30k lists were even in it (like for the friendly or 40k Champ). I don't know of any HH pure tournaments so best bet would be HH allowed into some 40k formats.

 

The reason I bring up the tournaments is because it seems they set the competitive norm, the other-side of Warhammer is the casual norm (where I consider myself) and GW is doing a great job of beating into us the "do what you want it's plastic miniatures" mentality.

 

I wish there was a clear cut answer but it might be better to live in ambiguity than be confined by strict rules, I am anxious to see what my crusade army list books has to say about this because it's advertised to be used for games of warhammer 40k while the istvaan books are campaign books for that specific period.

[Nehekhare]

 

the AoD FOC is not a detachment but an entirely separate method of arranging a FOC, with a Primary Detachment specific to the AoD FOC.  The AoD FOC is not a subset of Battleforged.

 

Battleforged FOC

Can combine any number of detachments and must designate one as the primary:

-Combined Arms Detachment: 1-2 HQ, 0-3 Elites, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 FA, 0-3 HS, 0-1 Fortification, 0-1 Lord of War

-Allied Detachment: 1 HQ, 0-1 Elites, 1-2 Troops, 0-1 FA, 0-1 HS (cannot be primary)

-Others as available

 

"Games using the Battles in the Age of Darkness rules expansion use one of a number of potential Force Organisation charts present on pages 166-167...The standard is the Battles in the Age of Darkness Force Organisation chart, which offers the widest degree of flexibility and should be considered the standard form of play while using this rules expension."

 

It is quite apparent to me that the AoD FOCs indeed constitutes a case of "others as available".

"Battle-forged" simply means "arranged in detachments", which applies to AoD battles as well, the only other option being unbound, i.e. not.

Remember that AoD is but an expansion to the 40k rules and explicitly advises to take further advice in force organization (everything that is not covered by the special expansion rules) from the core rulebook. The quote from Massacre pretty much confirms that while the expansion brings another set of FOCs that it uses as standart, this does not constitue a different way of organizing armies - we should not confuse "battle-forged" with "combined arms". Onslaught, Castellan and Leviathan are "other" FOCs.

This does not mean however that the AoD FOCs suddenly get new benefits like objective secured. This too is explicitly mentioned in the brb. 

 

I repeat the relevant quotations:

 

p.9 LACAL, "Using Force Organization Charts":

when selecting your army for a Battles in the Age of Darkness game, you use your chosen army list in conjunction with one of the Force Organisation charts shown on page 10 of this book [i.e. 3HQ/4 Elite, Onslaught, Castellan or Leviathan] and the scenario you are playing. [...] Further advice on selecting your army and its composition can be found in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. However, note that the Force Organisation charts presented here take precedence over that listed in the rulebook and, unlike the standart chart and battle missions found in the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, you may not take an additional primary detachment in games over 2,000 points unless specified by the particular mission (the expansion of the army being taken has already been taken into account in the Battles in the Age of Darkness charts).

 

 

 

The underlined part refers to a 6th ed. rule that does no longer exist, which is why there is no regulation on the number of FOCs allowed in an army at the moment. Instead, we find further advice in the current 40k rulebook (p.120):

SELECTING DETACHMENTS

You can include any number and type of Detachments in a Battle-forged army provided you have sufficient units.

 

 

 

 

casual norm

funny, isn't that a contradiction in itself? In my experience, norms are usually established to enable organized play, while a casual game is perfectly fine on a basis of individual agreements that in turn hold relevance for that game only.

 

I wish there was a clear cut answer but it might be better to live in ambiguity than be confined by strict rules.

In the end, we'll have to wait for the FAQ. Until then, we can discuss and search for the best answer. While Ambiguity promotes creativity, there is no game without rules.

[Moonstalker]

I appreciate the full quote from LACAL, as it's the one book I am missing.  To me, though, it just makes it look like you're focusing on one outdated clause while ignoring the rest of the rules.

 

"When selecting your army for a Battles in the Age of Darkness game, you use your chosen army list in conjunction with one of the Force Organisation charts shown on page 10 of this book [i.e. 3HQ/4 Elite, Onslaught, Castellan or Leviathan] and the scenario you are playing."

 

So, here we are directed to use an AOD FOC, whether the standard or one of the three variants.  But I have bolded the relevant ruling.  One.  You may use one of those FOC, and in the case of the standard AOD FOC you only get one primary detachment, one allied detachment, one fortification, one lord of war.  No multiple primaries.

 

"Further advice on selecting your army and its composition can be found in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."

 

I think this simply means that we need to look at the 40k rulebook to know what a FOC slot is, agreeing on points with your opponent, what a warlord is and how you designate one, warlord tables, etc.  There is more to the selecting your army/composition section than just the Battleforged chart.  I believe this is further reinforced by the following line.

 

"However, note that the Force Organisation charts presented here take precedence over that listed in the rulebook"

 

We are instructed not to use the charts available in the main rulebook.  Battleforged is a FOC.  Combined Arms and Allies are detachments available within the Battleforged FOC.  We may not use Battleforged, and without battleforged we may not take multiples of the same detachment.

 

"and, unlike the standard chart and battle missions found in the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, you may not take an additional primary detachment in games over 2,000 points unless specified by the particular mission (the expansion of the army being taken has already been taken into account in the Battles in the Age of Darkness charts)."

 

This is the rule that just seems to be tripping you up.  The rule obviously refers to something that doesn't exist anymore, but it's behind an and.  It's an additional clarification to the above rules.  Cover this portion of the rules with your hand, and reread the paragraph.

 

Edit:

 

 

 

It is quite apparent to me that the AoD FOCs indeed constitutes a case of "others as available".

 

I disagree.  The AoD Primary Detachment is not available except when taken in an AoD FOC.

 

 

 

"Battle-forged" simply means "arranged in detachments", which applies to AoD battles as well, the only other option being unbound, i.e. not.

 

I would read the battleforged section again.  Battleforged is not synonymous with 'any army arranged in detachments.'  Battleforged is an alternate method to Unbound, and requires that you arrange your army in detachments.  It does not mean that every army that uses detachments is battleforged.

[Nehekhare]

 

"one of the Force Organisation charts shown on page 10 of this book"

one of multiple choices, not necessarily one in total.

 

 

Battleforged is a FOC.

This is not correct. Battleforged is one of two types of army selection, not a (force organisation) chart. combined arms and allied detachments each come with their own FOC, just as the AoD FOCs. This is what I meant when I said not to confuse the two. I do think most of our disagreement comes from this misunderstanding.

 

army selection methods = battle-forged (in detachments) or unbound (not)

detachments = force organisation charts

 

cf. BRB, p. 117:

The two main ways of organising an army are the Unbound method and the Battleforged method. Both players need not use the same method. [...]

A player using the Battle-forged method must organise all the units they want to use into Detachments.

The AoD Expansion only comes with different FOCs/detachments, not with different army composition methods, for which we are told to take further advise from the BRB. 

 

 

"However, note that the Force Organisation charts presented here take precedence over that listed in the rulebook"

Yes, for the Battles in the Age of Darkness Expansion, Battle-forged armies are advised to use the FOCs presented. Doesn't say anything about numer of charts, nor does it prohibit using the Legion Army list in non-AoD games.

 

 

 [...] and, unlike the standard chart and battle missions found in the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, you may not take an additional primary detachment in games over 2,000 points unless specified by the particular mission (the expansion of the army being taken has already been taken into account in the Battles in the Age of Darkness charts)."

 

This is the rule that just seems to be tripping you up.  The rule obviously refers to something that doesn't exist anymore, but it's behind an and.  It's an additional clarification to the above rules.

This rule, which obviously refers to a nonexistent rule, would have been the only thing restricting the number of detachments/FOCs in any army.

[Moonstalker]

This is not correct. Battleforged is one of two types of army selection, not a (force organisation) chart. combined arms and allied detachments each come with their own FOC, just as the AoD FOCs. This is what I meant when I said not to confuse the two. I do think most of our disagreement comes from this misunderstanding.

 

army selection methods = battle-forged (in detachments) or unbound (not)

detachments = force organisation charts

 

You are right in that I may have used the FOC term when I meant to say army selection method.  However, I do not believe this changes anything.  I still think we are dealing with three entirely separate army selection methods.  Namely, Unbound, Battleforged, and Battles in the Age of Darkness.  I do not believe Battleforged has access to the Age of Darkness Force Organisation Chart (as the rules for BitAoD direct you to only use this chart for HH games of 1750 to 3000 points while directing you to use Battleforged/Unbound for games of 1749 or less, and Apocalypse for games over 3k), nor does the Battles in the Age of Darkness army selection method have access to the Combined Arms Detachment/FOC.  From my reading of the rules, Battles in the Age of Darkness directs you to select your army using the standard AOD FOC, or (with the agreement of your opponent/at the direction of the mission) from one of the alternate AOD FOCs (Onslaught, Leviathan, Castellan).

 

I think it's clear that neither of us is moving from our position without any word from above on the subject, so I'll probably write to FW on monday morning and see if they would offer a rules clarification.  If they don't, then I hope that our discussion here can help guide some of our brothers here on the B&C as they decide for their own gaming group how to adapt to seventh edition in the absence of an FAQ from FW.

[Nehekhare]

Your are right in that BitAoD use their own FOCs first (unless the mission played sais otherwise), but it's not another system. This is why "other" FOCs are mentioned in the Army composition rules. This is a good thing, too (imo): more flexibility and compatibility with other codices.

 

There will be a FAQ, I'm sure. I hope they'll solve the issues without restricting HH games too much. I wouldn't want my Legion to only be playable against other Legions, and I want it to benefit from the cool new things 7th has to offer.

[SillyDreadnought]

Your Legion is perfectly playable against normal 40k armies though. They put out a designer's note about it in the FAQ a while back. Barring 7th edition army selection ( which I honestly think you're making too big of a fuss about, the AoD force org is plenty for the points sizes it's intended for + an allied detachment ) shenanigans and system abuse, your Legion list is still as playable against Tau, Eldar and so on as it was before.

 

Assuming you play in a local group that doesn't have it's collective head shoved up it's collective backside in regards to Forge World.

[Spinsanity]

+ Edit +

 

I've been thinking about this post for a few hours and thought I sounded disrespectfull and accusatory, even though that was never my intent, so decided to edit it.

 

I still, nonetheless think that knowing the intent purpose of the rules as they were written in both Betrayal and LACAL - to limit you to a single Force Org chart no matter how many points you're playing - that looking for ways around that limitation seems to go against the spirit of fair play, especially if you need to argue your right to do so.

 

Howeve since everyone is entitled to play the game as they see fit, and considering that I could be perceived as unfaily trying to impose limitations on someone else's army, I'll agree with others and suggest everyone plays it as they see fit and wait for official word from FW.

 

 

I am sorry for what might have been perceived as harsh, defamatory words,

 

Mat

[MiR]

You make Problems where no one exists.

As lond as there is no FAQ stick on the old Rules. If neiter Blood Angels or Space Wolf had FAQs we still have them to play

with 5th ed Rules, and no one cares.

Dont get youre point......cant see any Problems.

Playing 30k......use 30k (old) Rules.

Playing 40k.....use 7th ed Rules.

[Nehekhare]

your Legion list is still as playable against Tau, Eldar and so on as it was before.

haha, maybe not against eldar but what army is? ;D

Yes, I quoted that FAQ a million times already and I sincerely hope they keep up that spirit when they adress the issues that arose with the transition to 7th.

 

+ Edit +

 

looking for ways around that limitation seems to go against the spirit of fair play, especially if you need to argue your right to do so.

 

I'll agree with others and suggest everyone plays it as they see fit and wait for official word from FW.

thx for the reflection :)

I agree, yet I think discussing does indeed help. As it stands, objective secured alone pretty much turned around the way scoring and armies work 360 degrees and the HH rules are not prepared for this at the moment. I mostly play my Legion against "regular" codices, so this is an issue for me.

 

Dont get youre point......cant see any Problems.

The point simply is that all 40k games use the 40k rules ;)

[MiR]

Then use youre 7th ed 40k Rules....ALL of them, and no 30k Rules.

40k AOC and finish this in my opinion silly discussion.

30k is in my opinion not mean to played in 40k and vice versa. If u whant to Play a frendly game u can Play as u and youre locals wish.

As Long as there is no FAQ the old rules stay in place for me if you whant a answer to youre question, if you dont like it dont Play it, or come to an Agreement with youre friends. 30k is not 40k and that wont Change.

[Moonstalker]

Nehekhare, I tried to represent your position as well I could when I contacted FW, but I was also trying to keep things brief.

 

 

Hey, I was hoping you guys could clarify army selection for HH forces under 7th edition for my group.  Is the Battles in the Age of Darkness rules expansion a separate army selection system, or is it now a subset of battleforged army selection?  From my reading of Massacre, it looks like we are directed to use Battleforged or Unbound for games of 1749 points and under, but that for games of 1750-3000 we should only use the rules from Massacre (or LACAL), and use a single Age of Darkness Force Org chart (IE, one Primary Detachment with 1-3 HQ, 0-4 Elites, 2-6 troops, 0-3 FA, 0-3 HS, plus an optional allied, fortification, and/or Lord of War detachment).

One of the other members of my group has the contrary opinion that the Age of Darkness force org is just an 'others as available' set of detachments for Battleforged, and that multiple AoD force orgs can be taken under Battleforged.  That one could, for instance, take a Night Lords force with the Terror Assault Rite of War using a Praetor and 3 terror squads, and then a second primary detachment of Night Lords with a centurion, two tactical squads, and three heavy support choices, because Battleforged allows you to freely take multiple detachments.
 

Any clarification you could offer would be appreciated.

 

 

hi,

        Thank you for your email.  When playing games of Horus Heresy, you use the Force Organisations charts from the Horus Heresy books and do not play Unbound games.  You only use the Force Organisation charts for the Horus Heresy book and pick your forces using the rules from the Horus Heresy books.  This means you cannot take a Primary detachment of Night Lords with Night Lords as your allied detachment.

 

If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us.

Regards,

Forge World

 

 

This isn't as clear-cut as I would hope (honestly, I think they just skim half the rules queries I send them cause half the answers back I get have nothing to do with the question), but I think they are coming down on my side of the argument.  No battleforged.  No unbound.  No multiple detachments of the same Legion.  You get what's in LACAL and only what's in LACAL.

[Nehekhare]

in my opinion

 

hey, you can do what you want, but what rules are legal and how they work are not even subject to opinion.

 

If the game would work without rules and everything could just be rolled off, then why discuss it at all? 

 

Lastly, if your opinion consists of nothing more than "other's opinions are silly", then perhaps you could contribute more to the discussion by not posting?

[Nehekhare]

 

hi,

        Thank you for your email.  When playing games of Horus Heresy, you use the Force Organisations charts from the Horus Heresy books and do not play Unbound games.  You only use the Force Organisation charts for the Horus Heresy book and pick your forces using the rules from the Horus Heresy books.  This means you cannot take a Primary detachment of Night Lords with Night Lords as your allied detachment.

 

 

If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us.

 

Regards,

Forge World

 

This isn't as clear-cut as I would hope

 

 

Oh thanks for that, but this doesn't answer anything at all, haha! I would even argue this means: not unbound, thus battleforged, but AoD FOCs only (unless you don't play a BitAoD game but a normal maelstrom/eternal war game, then you can play anything anyway). ;)

[SillyDreadnought]

I wouldn't mind Objective Secured on my Immortals! Honestly, until a FAQ comes out, we'll just be going around and around in circles, although some things I think should be fairly obvious, like allying in yourself ( dunno why you would, when the Taghmata, Army and other Legions can lend themselves to -really- thematic and effective lists ) or Unbound.

[Moonstalker]

The first two things I think we can clearly take aware are:

 

1. Never unbound.

2. You cannot bring multiple detachments of the same Legion.

 

Then the third:

 

 

 

You only use the Force Organisation charts for the Horus Heresy book

 

So, even assuming you are allowed to use the Battleforged Army selection method, you may never take a Combined Arms detachment or the Allied detachment from the Battleforged section.

 

 

 

and pick your forces using the rules from the Horus Heresy books.

 

To me, this says no battleforged, you use the BitAoD method, which gives you one of the standard AoD FOCs (with the single Primary Detachment, single optional Allied Detachment, single optional Fortification Detachment, and single optional Lord of War Detachment) or one of the variants if permitted by mission/agreed to by opponent.  But I'm also sure that this is still where we disagree.

[Nehekhare]

I wouldn't mind Objective Secured

 yeah this is mostly it. without objective secured, there is no point in the AoD FOCs. One might as well play unbound and get the same benefits without the restrictions (still problematic because of the different ally matrices). multiple detachments are just convenience/flexibility (e.g. nobody would mind more than one FOC when playing with more than 2 players, we've all done that and there were never any problems).

I haven't even used the AoD FOCs in 6th because everybody else played with the generic one already.

 

 

 this says no battleforged

unless we'd agree on the BitAoD "method" being battle-forged ;)

 

 But I'm also sure that this is still where we disagree.

 ;)

[Moonstalker]

For myself, I'm focusing a lot on hobby at the moment, replacing the proxies I've been using for playtesting with proper resin.  The few games I get in will probably still be under sixth ed rules, at least until a proper FAQ comes out.

[Nehekhare]

oh I gotsome mileage with my IVth/Mech already in 7th. ETL3 made me paint 8k pts to bring out and the new tactical objectives are fun. lots of tiny little rule improvements, too. Just go for it is my recommendation.

[MiR]

 

in my opinion

 

hey, you can do what you want, but what rules are legal and how they work are not even subject to opinion.

 

If the game would work without rules and everything could just be rolled off, then why discuss it at all? 

 

Lastly, if your opinion consists of nothing more than "other's opinions are silly", then perhaps you could contribute more to the discussion by not posting?

 

Youre right Rules are no subject to opinion.

But the Rules you are trying desperately to find and invent are simple not there my good german friend.

This discussion become a troll, and i dont give suggar to such kind of things.......

[Brofist]

What are we seeing as the problem with taking multiple legion detachments under 2000 points? Our troops are expensive as hell, so you're looking at 700 points for 4 troops and 2 HQs without any upgrades. My group just plays using the 40k rulebooks rules, which means I use their FOC. 

 

I don't really have an opinion on this, since it feels like its up to each group to decide for themselves, but I'd like to add this little gem from the public rules for the 30k navigator:

http://i.imgur.com/eOk2SXy.jpg

...so that confirms detachments in 30k?

[Nehekhare]

troll

 

multiple legion detachments

add in Mechanicum, where you get a troops choice for 35pts.

 

 

using the 40k rulebooks rules, which means I use their FOC.

same here. Why use the AoD one when there is no benefit, only restrictions and explaining? It just creates some issues like certain RoW restrictions (e.g. pride of the legion = no allied detachments...but can I take secondary combined arms detachments from other factions?). But I do prefer the AoD rules for D-weapons and LoW. 

 

confirms detachments in 30k?

Was that even a question? It's all over the FOC tables already.

[Kecyre]

I was curious why they would even have an ally matrix if you could not do multiple Legions?