The new Hate and te raising of double force Org and 2000 tournaments.

[Flammenwerfer13]

I can get into the current absurd knee jerk reactions to double force org and the straw-man arguments but I'm going to pass that up and get to my main point.

I've been hearing about this new creature in the wild called the 1999+1 Tournaments, only see it posted once. Beyond the fact that it's a rather childish way of saying 2000 points no double force org they're trying to make a statement. What this really broadcast to the normal gamers out there is this "We're hardcore about winning and don't want to lose and wish we still had 5e".

Now I'm starting to see a divide growing between three segments of the community.
On one side is the split competitive community. Half are ok with the new rules allowing 2 force orgs at 2k and the other half aren't. Right now it hit and miss with tournaments that allow it and those that dont.

The other (actually over whelming half maybe 2/3) of the gaming community could care less. They want to have fun and play. If it's allowed in the game by the new rules then so be it.

What I see over the next 3-4 months is a settling of the current meta and the raise of 2k tournaments. Why you ask? Well this allows certain armies to maximize the use of certain restricted areas, like Elites for Eldar and Tyrinads, and HS for Tau to name a few. What this also allows is a greater and fluffier Army lists that you're normal gamers love. While 2k is the standard in my area for years I'm already starting to see 1750-1850 Tournaments bump up to 2k or 1999+1 level. A lot of this is do to allies right now. As for times we just ran a 2300 point tournament here locally and the average time to finish was around 2 hours even though we allotted 2 1/2 hours. Those crying about longer game play with 2k aren't wrong.

If tournament organizers are going to start banning double force org lists with either the childish 1999+1 moniker or 2k no double force org then expect to see smaller and smaller crowds over the next few months. What next are you going to ban, allies? Maybe change up the how reserves work, oow allow Tyrinads to be BBF's with IG!!



Double Force Org at 2000 points is here to stay, get use to it, embrace it, love it and above all have fun!

(disclaimer I do not run nor plan on running a Double Force Org Army)

[plasticaddict]

Hmm, our local events had been down to the 1500-1850 level well before 6th hit and shows now signs of changing. Interesting to see that in your area games are getting bigger.

[Chris Copeland]

I don't know anyone who is against Double Force Org and I know a LOT of players. As Plastic Addict said, most tournies seem to run 1500-1850 and have for a LONG time. I don't know how interested I'd be in playing a 2k point tourney just based on time!

[evilamericorp]

The ban on double force orgs is to let more people have fun at tournaments. If you want to play a friendly game at your FLGS at 2k points, no one would complain about you having 4 heavies or making a fluffy aspect warrior eldar list. The problem that TOs don't want to deal with is that the competitive players you hate so much ABSOLUTELY WILL abuse the system to make armies that are no fun to play against. 2k makes for fun games if fun is the goal, but at a tournament where winning is the goal 2k double force org Coteaz shenanigans makes you want to flip the table and punch the douche across from you in the throat.

I want to play 6th with all the rules as much as the next guy, but if I'm paying a bunch of money to fly across the country and throw some dice, I want to have fun at the table; not have to deal with the ******* who brought 12 inquisitorial henchman squads or 90 lootas.

[The AKH]

To be quite honest, I would wager that GW put that provision in the rulebook because the single force organization chart starts to run out of slots pretty fast between 2000 and 3000 (3000 being the low-end cap for Apocalypse).

One can see how they may have authored that expecting people to fill up their first chart then take another as a sort of "bonus" for games of, say, 2500-4000 points. And knowing GW, the fact that you could mix and match for 2-4 HQ, 4-12 Troops, 0-6 of everything else at 2000 points flat was probably overlooked.

I don't think there's any sense in banning it outright, but I wouldn't begrudge a TO running a "2000 point" tournament to request that entrants only use a single force organization chart. It's no different than running a Planetstrike tournament (which would use a different chart entirely) or simply stipulating "For this next tournament, you are limited to 1 selection from every section except Troops". It's well within the TO's rights.

And hey, where I'm from, one very rarely sees tournaments in the 2k range anyway. Largest tourney I ever played in (in 7 years of hobbying) was 1850.

[Sainhann]

Which is why GW should have gotten rid of the Force Composition Chart. I have hated it since 3rd Edition when it came out.

If they had went with a percentage system there would have been no problem.

HQs - MAX 20%
Elites - MAX 20%
Troops - MINIMUM 25%
Fast Attack - MAX 20%
Heavy Support - MAX 20%

This comes to a total of 105% which is not possible so something would have to be less then it Max.

As points you get.

HQs - MAX 400 points
Elites - MAX 400 points
Troops - MINIMUM 500 points
Fast Attack - MAX 400 points
Heavy Support - MAX 400 points

By using this system there is no way you can get 90 Ork Loota's.

Plus it will allow those players like me who love to run with large numbers of troops.

The Force Composition Chart hurts several armies because they are limited in the number of troops that they can put onto the table (I.E. max of just 6).

Imperial Guard was given their Platoon structure because of this stupid chart. Thus I have no problem putting 186 Guardsmen plus 4 vehicles in my 2000 point force.

But for my Orks I cannot build the force that I want to. The same goes for my Eldar.

The Min/Maxing of today comes from this chart.

Take the bare minimum 2 troops and Max out everything else.

I was hoping that GW would get rid of it. But they didn't but they did stated that at 2000 points you can fielded two of them.

So now we have individuals trying to stop that because they know that if given the chance the WAACer's will field the bare minimum 4 troops and max out something else.

But with the above percentage system their is no way to do this because of the point limitations put onto the everything except troops.

Using the above system at 1500 points for Fast Attack you would be limited to just 300 points worth of Fast Attack, at 1850 this would be 370 points and for 2000 it would be just 400 points.

So you can't get 1100 points of Fast Attack at 2000 because that would be 700 points more than what would be allowed.

You give players a chance to be a WAACer they will take it and that is why many TO's are not going to allow two charts at 2000 points.

Because they know what many players will do.

[newdigitaltau]

I think the reason that GW would never do percentages is simple.... Math. For new players having to figure out percentages would be a huge turn off and would hurt sales. I know you won't think this way but it's too complicated in an already argumentative and complicated game.

[Mr Mystery]

Percentages work fine in Fantasy...

Up to 25% lords, up to 25% heroes, at least 25% Core, up to 50% special, up to 25% rare, with repetition limits on special and rare units, which increase at 3,000 points.

I think TO's could adapt this to 40k very nicely.

[Denzark]

The problem is that the universal leveller for 40K shoud be the points cost. It is an imperfect way of giving forces that should be as effective as each other.

Imperfect in that it is a fact that the desire to sell models, and that codexes written closer to the current edition or for it, will be more effective than those written for an earleir edition.

If you don't think the points cost is (roughly) correct, then you can't guarantee that any pickup game or tournament game will have a modicum of balance. Unless you actually want to play at a handicap why would you ever?

Therefore a key part for me in the game is you must have a basic level of faith in GW to keep things fair - again, if you don't have this, why would you play?

On that basis, I hate TOs changing army laydown. the worst I played in limited IG to 1 HS slot becuase they considered the IG overpowered. Who in hell says a random TO is better at balance then a seasoned game designer?

If you play to 2000pts and don't allow the full double FOC, the game being played is not 40K. It may be a hybrid, so the winner's bragging rights can be 'yes I won the hybrid 40K tournament in little ****tington - no its not real 40K because the TO changed the rules'.

If someone spawns x units, that means they can't take y units. So it should all balance out in the end. Admittedly the ability to alpha strike with 18 Leman Russ variants is quite harsh to fight. But you'll get over it.

Similarly, disallowing fortifications or allies. If you do this, you are not playing 40K. You are playing the TOs own *******ised version.

End of.

[Wildeybeast]

I don't know anyone who is against Double Force Org and I know a LOT of players. As Plastic Addict said, most tournies seem to run 1500-1850 and have for a LONG time. I don't know how interested I'd be in playing a 2k point tourney just based on time!

I don't dislike it, I just don't feel it's necessary, so I play 2000 point games without it. There is nothing wrong with either TO's or casual gamers picking and choosing which rules they use and which they don't, or even adding or altering rules, so long as everyone agrees on it beforehand. I reject the OP suggestion that changing the rules is the mindset of win at all cost players and mutually exclusive with having fun. GW have said time and again (not that anyone listens) that rules are framework to help you have fun playing with their models. They don't expect a dogmatic adherence to them, they are just there to help you build the narrative of your game. If your narrative requires altering those rules, go ahead. I see no difference between TO's not allowing allies or double FOC and them creating special rules for a unique scenario people play. It's not about 'making a statement', it's about creating what they feel will be fun game for people. If that's not your idea of fun, then you don't have to join in. I don't see why this is an issue.


Percentages work fine in Fantasy...

Up to 25% lords, up to 25% heroes, at least 25% Core, up to 50% special, up to 25% rare, with repetition limits on special and rare units, which increase at 3,000 points.

I think TO's could adapt this to 40k very nicely.

Though most of the kids that get into GW do so through 40K. Warhammer tends to be aimed at, and played by, a more mature gamer in my experience. That said, your average 12 year old should be able to work out 25% of 2000 with little difficulty, if they can't our education system is in even worse trouble than I thought.

[Wolfshade]

I think that this is a local problem and it seems to have dawned from a fundamental different approach to gaming.
On BoLS I invariably see 2000pt game as the standard size, in my gaming group we play somewhere between 1500 pt sized games as standard so the whole double force organisation chart issue does not appear at all.
Similiarly, I have never seen a "net list" being played.
Part of me agrees with Denzark

...I hate TOs changing army laydown. The worst I played in limited IG to 1 HS slot becuase they considered the IG overpowered. Who in hell says a random TO is better at balance then a seasoned game designer?
Similarly, I find Wildeybeast comment quite compelling

There is nothing wrong with either TO's or casual gamers picking and choosing which rules they use and which they don't, or even adding or altering rules, so long as everyone agrees on it beforehand

[Denzark]

Casual gamers - fine. What I do in my man cave is my business.

And obviously TOs can do what they like to their own tournament. So actually i agree with Wildey.

But the PRINCIPLE for me is Joe Bloggs editing the rules at will.

There is no different between saying 'no double FOC' and 'no second dice for half range melta'. Or any other rule they fancy.

You don't go to the world cup football tournament and find the host nation has taken out the offside rule - the rules are laid down as a world standard.

You don't go to the olympics to the triple jump and find the host nation has added in a need for the competitors to stop and high five their coach before the jump - there is a standard.

So TO's should just admit that when they alter the international standard - laid down by GW not those INAT loonies, they are not actually playing 40K, something similar but not identical.

Its like 40K is Rugby Union and 40K with changed rules is Rubgy league. Everyone knows union is far superior.

[Wolfshade]

Its like 40K is Rugby Union and 40K with changed rules is Rubgy league. Everyone knows union is far superior.

So true

[Wildeybeast]

Casual gamers - fine. What I do in my man cave is my business.

And obviously TOs can do what they like to their own tournament. So actually i agree with Wildey.

But the PRINCIPLE for me is Joe Bloggs editing the rules at will.

There is no different between saying 'no double FOC' and 'no second dice for half range melta'. Or any other rule they fancy.

You don't go to the world cup football tournament and find the host nation has taken out the offside rule - the rules are laid down as a world standard.

You don't go to the olympics to the triple jump and find the host nation has added in a need for the competitors to stop and high five their coach before the jump - there is a standard.

So TO's should just admit that when they alter the international standard - laid down by GW not those INAT loonies, they are not actually playing 40K, something similar but not identical.

Its like 40K is Rugby Union and 40K with changed rules is Rubgy league. Everyone knows union is far superior.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Firstly, even if we did all play to the same global rule set, GW arbitrarily changes the rules every so often and thus changes the way the game is played. To use your example, can you imagine the outcry if FIFA decided that the game needed spicing up and introduced added time multi ball? There would be utter chaos and breakaway leagues everywhere, so it is hardly surprising when GW changes the rules that some people choose not to adopt all of them.

Secondly, GW does not want everyone to play to a global standard. They are first and foremost and model making company. They want people to buy their cool models and have fun playing with them, so they make rules. There is a universal standard of rules so that you can turn up at a random store and have a game with Fred Bloggs, without needing to make up your own rule system. However, they really don't care if you and Fred Bloggs agree that night fighting doesn't add anything to the game (that you enjoy) and want to take it out, and as a consequence feel that First Blood will be unfair, so take that out as well. Why shouldn't Fred Bloggs edit the rules at will as long as everyone playing is happy? GW actively encourage you to make up your own campaigns and scenarios with altered rules. The rulebook is a guide to how to play the games nothing more.

As for the argument it's not 40K, that's nonsense. At it's heart, 40K is as much, if not more so, the model range and the gamers as it is the rules. Without those, the rules are just words on paper.

[DrLove42]

I agree with some folk. I don't like the idea of a 2nd FoC and see it just as something that will mostly be abused. You can fit a great army into 2000 points without it.

And people saying "if you remove the 2nd FoC why not just play 5th ed!". This isn't true. The 2nd FoC doesn't change the way the game is played. It change the way the game is organised. There is a difference. You still now play FNP as a 5+ and the same with cover. You played wound allocation from the front, and night fighting as a + to cover. You're at no point saying otherwise to these. You're still playing 6th ed, just balencing things a bit. Some armies benefit from double FoC more than others.

I'd propose a middle ground. Stuff in one FoC doesn't affect that in another. For instance, Cotez makes Henchmen troops, but only in the FoC hes in. The other FoC must have its minimum of 2 troops, but these can't be henchmen as Corteaz is in the other chart.

[SotonShades]

Sorry, but I don't agree. Firstly, even if we did all play to the same global rule set, GW arbitrarily changes the rules every so often and thus changes the way the game is played. To use your example, can you imagine the outcry if FIFA decided that the game needed spicing up and introduced added time multi ball? There would be utter chaos and breakaway leagues everywhere, so it is hardly surprising when GW changes the rules that some people choose not to adopt all of them.

Actually, most sporting associations do change and update their rules on a nearly annual basis. Either to cover people bending the rules to gain advantage (such as whichever football team it was who had towns on hand to dry the ball for throwins, giving them something like a 10% gain in throw-in distance) or to improve the sport for a televised audience. Many rules changes are also brought in because of changes in technology, such as goal line technology and hawkeye, being able to assits referees, umpire's and officials. Admittedly, most of these rules changes only effect players at the highest standard, but there are a good number that filter down to those that play on the park of a sunday afternoon.

That said, I deffinitely agree with your opinion in some parts. GW have always said that they encourage houserules and the like. TOs have always messed with the game by writing their own missions, having a direct effect on the balance of the game. So on that score, if they want to take out Double Foc, Allies and or Fortifications; great. more power too them. I for one actually would like to see a "Challange Series" of tournaments. Something like a few one day tournaments (possibly with an overall leaderboard to keep track of the series) where you completely mess with the FOC. Mabye one with no minimum requirements, one where you cannot take Heavy Support Options, or no HQ choices (Could be very interesting for Warlord choices), ones where you run on percentages rather than FOCs at all, maybe a cavern/tunnel based day where barrage weapons and flyers are out and there are tight confines that make vehicles and MCs nigh impossible to use effectively. Amongst other ideas ;)

Equally though I have sympathies with Denzark's arguments. If you are only playing 40k at a torunament, especially if you have anyone from anywhere able to enter, why change anything that is presented in the rulebooks, codicies and FAQs? Everyone has access to the same option to do double FOCs and it is there choice if they use it. I'd actually steer clear until I got to much larger games because the cost of 2 HQs and 4 Troops choices generally limits what you can do in terms of 6 Heavy support choices and the like, but that is just my point of view. If someone wants to give it a go, I'll glad try to prove my point over a few games, see if my more balanced list ion a single FOC can show them what's what!

GW could easilly have sorter this out by saying double foc was availible in games OVER 2000 points :P Oh well, live and (hopefully) learn...

[Rapture]

I don't see why the double FOC isn't allowed but allies are. My biggest problem with this is that it seriously abuses the one army that cannot have allies. The tyranids are left in the cold because they represent such a small minority when compared to all of the players of all the other armies who feel that they have enough FOC freedom with the new allies rules.

Disallowing double FOC is such a serious rule change because it does not apply evenly to all of the armies (as the tyranids suffer more).

[Anggul]

I can understand the disdain for double force org. It doesn't come up much as far as I can see as a lot of people tend to play 1500-1850 anyway, but when it does you can just have some silly firepower in your lists. Spamming the hell out of Annihilation Barges and the like comes to mind.

Now you might say: 'But both sides can do it, so it's still fair.'

This, however, means that both sides are going to do pretty much the same thing, taking loads of Heavy Support and maybe an extra HQ. The fun thing about 6th is that it's shaken up everyone's lists and made people play more different forces, why would we want to reduce that? Yes, it's up to the players, but some people will just play a super-spammy list to win without putting much thought into it. The whole point in the FOC is to make you have to decide on what you will and won't take, if you've got room to do whatever you want then it doesn't take much choice any more.

[GrogDaTyrant]

Yes, it's up to the players, but some people will just play a super-spammy list to win without putting much thought into it. The whole point in the FOC is to make you have to decide on what you will and won't take, if you've got room to do whatever you want then it doesn't take much choice any more.

That's the inherent problem to the Force Org charts. In a sense, they encourage spam to a degree. Two of my favorite all time wargames don't use anything remotely close to a 'force org chart'.

[Wolfshade]

FOC brings balance to the game, otherwise we are back in the Halcyon Days of 2nd ed and those crazy games

[Sainhann]

FOC brings balance to the game, otherwise we are back in the Halcyon Days of 2nd ed and those crazy games

Funny, I played a lot of 2nd Edition games and the 40K was far more balance back then.

The Min-Maxing of today did not start until after the FOC came into effect.

That is when players learn to just take the bare minimum in troops and then Maxing out their Elites, HQ's, Heavy Support and maybe Fast Attack.

Plus as I already mention before it hampered the builds of several armies, Orks, Eldar, Imperial Guard until GW went to the Platoon structure for troops.

Ever wonder why Orks went from being a higher Tier army to being down on the bottom. It was the FOC since being limited to just SIX TROOPS stop it from being the horde army that it once was.

Ever see a lot of Ork players using units of Gretchens as troop choices? Nope because doing so cuts into the limited SIX TROOPS choices.

I would have no problem with the FOC if it did not limit the number of troops that I could have.

It does put a limit of HQ's - Max of two and limits Elites, Fast Attack & Heavy Support - Max of three each. This is a good thing but where GW screw up was only putting a Max of six troops choices.

For a company who's main goal in life is to sell miniatures they are not to bright.

[Denzark]

Funny, I played a lot of 2nd Edition games and the 40K was far more balance back then.

The Min-Maxing of today did not start until after the FOC came into effect.

That is when players learn to just take the bare minimum in troops and then Maxing out their Elites, HQ's, Heavy Support and maybe Fast Attack.

Plus as I already mention before it hampered the builds of several armies, Orks, Eldar, Imperial Guard until GW went to the Platoon structure for troops.

Ever wonder why Orks went from being a higher Tier army to being down on the bottom. It was the FOC since being limited to just SIX TROOPS stop it from being the horde army that it once was.

Ever see a lot of Ork players using units of Gretchens as troop choices? Nope because doing so cuts into the limited SIX TROOPS choices.

I would have no problem with the FOC if it did not limit the number of troops that I could have.

It does put a limit of HQ's - Max of two and limits Elites, Fast Attack & Heavy Support - Max of three each. This is a good thing but where GW screw up was only putting a Max of six troops choices.

For a company who's main goal in life is to sell miniatures they are not to bright.

I wonder if anyone told the last winner of the Throne of Skulls that his Orks (no allies, 1 flier) were lower tier?

[Mr Mystery]

2nd Edition? Herohammer? More balanced? You sure we played the same game???

Min-Max very much did occur. The characters were mental hard, you could make them all but invincible. Transports and Bikes were deathtraps, and never really used that much......

6th Edition is a better game than 2nd Ed if you ask me. You need a combined arms approach. After several editions of swinging from one 'must have' to the next, 6th Edition has pretty much got it right. You need the objectives to win, and thanks to the missions, you can never be quite sure what the winning combination would be, so the sensible approach is to hedge your bets and take a variety of units.

[Wildeybeast]

Actually, most sporting associations do change and update their rules on a nearly annual basis. Either to cover people bending the rules to gain advantage (such as whichever football team it was who had towns on hand to dry the ball for throwins, giving them something like a 10% gain in throw-in distance) or to improve the sport for a televised audience. Many rules changes are also brought in because of changes in technology, such as goal line technology and hawkeye, being able to assits referees, umpire's and officials. Admittedly, most of these rules changes only effect players at the highest standard, but there are a good number that filter down to those that play on the park of a sunday afternoon.

In a way this example proves my point. Goal line technology is now a rule that Fifa has introduced (as a result of persistent demands from most of the footballing community rather than to spice up the game or make more money), but it will be left to individual FA's (see TO's) to decide how they implement it, and given the cost implications, it's adoption is voluntary. In other words, people can choose whether to use that rule in their games, based on their circumstances. The same is true of GW.

[Sainhann]

I wonder if anyone told the last winner of the Throne of Skulls that his Orks (no allies, 1 flier) were lower tier?

How did they do in 3rd, 4th & 5th Edition?

6th Edition brought a lot back for them.

[Sainhann]

2nd Edition? Herohammer? More balanced? You sure we played the same game???

Min-Max very much did occur. The characters were mental hard, you could make them all but invincible. Transports and Bikes were deathtraps, and never really used that much......

6th Edition is a better game than 2nd Ed if you ask me. You need a combined arms approach. After several editions of swinging from one 'must have' to the next, 6th Edition has pretty much got it right. You need the objectives to win, and thanks to the missions, you can never be quite sure what the winning combination would be, so the sensible approach is to hedge your bets and take a variety of units.

Well back in 2nd Edition we also had the Vortex Grenade which we all knew was just sitting out there for our biggest character.

I should know because it was a very rare game where my Eldar Avatar did not get Vortex'd. So I went into games knowing that this was very likely to happen.

My opponent would Vortex my Avatar and I would Vortex his guy. So the games did tend to be more balanced.

The thing I really hated back then was the Virus Grenade. Did nothing against Marines and I once lost nearly 50% of my Eldar army once. Still even with that I still almost got the win and if I had one more turn would have.

There is a reason why Eldar Guardians were nerfed. Because back in 2nd Edition they were the best Infantry in the game. Then 3rd Edition came along with the nerfing of Guardians and they went from being the best to the worst.

But I do agree with you that 6th Edition is better I just do not like the FOC and we will be seeing more items that TO's will not want to have in the game. Because it make their running their events harder.

[Wolfshade]

How did they do in 3rd, 4th & 5th Edition?

6th Edition brought a lot back for them.

3rd-5th also had FOCs...

None of my gaming group min-max things, just because a particular meta occurs is not an inherent "fault" of an edition.


But I do agree with you that 6th Edition is better I just do not like the FOC and we will be seeing more items that TO's will not want to have in the game. Because it make their running their events harder.
I'm not sure how it makes it harder, in terms of army composition a 1850pt army has the same FOC slots available from 3rd to 5th.

[SotonShades]

Funny, I played a lot of 2nd Edition games and the 40K was far more balance back then.

The Min-Maxing of today did not start until after the FOC came into effect.

I think that's slight untrue. When people played in the spirit of the game, it was brilliant, well balanced and a lot of fun! That's the stuff we all fondly look back to. (I say we, I only played it as a looking back kind of thing as i didn't start til 3rd). Bare in mind this was played when most peple only had a handful (or three for Ork players) of men, maybe a character or two and possibly a single vehicle.

Bigger games became ridiculous though. On top of that, it was very, very easy to min-max characters to become increadibly powerful. It's not the min-maxing we see today as dictated by the FOC, but it did still happen. When that happened, the game very quickle became wildly unbalanced and nigh unplayable.

For all the armies you mentioned, the FOC on third changed the way they played, but it didn't hinder them as such.

Being limited to 6 troops for orks is a good thing. They can still field 180 models in those 6 troops! And that only just tips the scales at 1080 points, all ready being more models than most other armies will struggle to deal with up to 2000 points. While a green tide is a fun concept to play (only once... after that you'll curse ever having to move that many models!) bieng 'forced' to take other options allows you to take the funnier, more interesting units, such as Burnas, Lootas, orky vehicles...

[Shaun]

The ban on double force orgs is to let more people have fun at tournaments. If you want to play a friendly game at your FLGS at 2k points, no one would complain about you having 4 heavies or making a fluffy aspect warrior eldar list. The problem that TOs don't want to deal with is that the competitive players you hate so much ABSOLUTELY WILL abuse the system to make armies that are no fun to play against. 2k makes for fun games if fun is the goal, but at a tournament where winning is the goal 2k double force org Coteaz shenanigans makes you want to flip the table and punch the douche across from you in the throat.

I want to play 6th with all the rules as much as the next guy, but if I'm paying a bunch of money to fly across the country and throw some dice, I want to have fun at the table; not have to deal with the ******* who brought 12 inquisitorial henchman squads or 90 lootas.

Have you thought that if other people are travelling across country its might be to have fun winning tough games. I dont mind mixed or fixed whatever but anyone who expects to not encounter tough optimised lists in tourney has to ask themselves why are they there?

I just dont see the issue with double FOC or not, I can max out my points quickly enough either way I am a relaxed casual player but I dont mind playing any sort of list. I learn either way and you can have fun games locally without going to tourneys but you cant have tourney standard of play type games or variety of opponents at your FLGS very often.

[Flammenwerfer13]

Nice to see my comment has generated some buzz. Also seems there is still a big divide.

Why are Allies ok but not Double FOC? How are they mutually exclusive when they both change up army list?

I completely forgot that the majority of the community plays between 1500-1850 list (rather limiting in my opinion). My area and almost all major local, regional and national Tournaments are 2000 points. From everything I've seen is the fear of something possibly happening. You can get as much cheese out of 1 FOC as you can out of 2 FOC because there will always be players exploiting everything possible regardless of the restrictions placed on them. Fearing something that "might happen" is a very poor argument to ban them. The very same argument can be made for allies yet I've yet to see them banned.


Wow Double FOC is like the nuclear bomb to most people.
This comes to mind.

"How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"

[Sainhann]

For all the armies you mentioned, the FOC on third changed the way they played, but it didn't hinder them as such.

Well Imperial Guard had to go to the Platoon Structure because prior to that they just could not build a decent army.

Nearly at the same time the FOC came out Eldar Guardians were nerf to hell.

Plus for Eldar prior to the FOC you would normally field any where from 4-7 units of what are now Elites (I.E. Fire Dragons, Banshees, Striking Scorpions, Wraithguard, Harlequins). You would have at least that many and actually more units of Guardians. Then you had the Fast Attack choices.

But today Elites are limited to just three and with so many choices players usually now only field Fire Dragons and maybe a unit of Banshees or Harlequins.

Guardians rarely ever see the tabletop and the standard Troop Choice are Dire Avengers.

Prior to 6th Edition Fast Attack was a forgetten section due to needing points elsewhere.

I would love to see Eldar get something like the IG platoons as a Troop choice. Would give players more of a reason to take Guardians. Or, give Guardians back their 24" range S. Catapults.

[Wolfshade]

The whole point of it is so that you can't jsut bring all your toys.
The FOC is deliberately limiting, in the same way that a points limit is deliberatley limiting.
If you have to choose what to put into your 1500 army you have to make some deicisions about what to take and what to leave behind and give consideration to what is likely to be effective, if you play 3000pt you can bring the kitchen sink and be ready for all comers.
I would suggest that at low points the army list you pick is very important, maybe more so than how you play it.

It is also good because it gives some rationale behind how an army would deploy (I know realisim isn't 40k) but if you are playing a 2500 game you would not expect to see half a spacemarine 1st company.

[Flammenwerfer13]

The whole point of it is so that you can't jsut bring all your toys.
The FOC is deliberately limiting, in the same way that a points limit is deliberatley limiting.
If you have to choose what to put into your 1500 army you have to make some deicisions about what to take and what to leave behind and give consideration to what is likely to be effective, if you play 3000pt you can bring the kitchen sink and be ready for all comers.
I would suggest that at low points the army list you pick is very important, maybe more so than how you play it.

It is also good because it gives some rationale behind how an army would deploy (I know realisim isn't 40k) but if you are playing a 2500 game you would not expect to see half a spacemarine 1st company.


Poor strawman argument. This goes into the realm of "what if" and that's why I think this whole knee jerk reaction to Double FOC has been. A poor exercise in the "what if" that seems to give a pass to allies that are on the same token.

So far all I hear is "what if" player X brings 6 of something, then I'll lose! Sounds like poor planning to build a well rounded list.