I did a search, and all I see are army lists.

So, what's the deal? When you make a list, and label it 1999+1, does that simply mean that you are limiting to 1999pts and accidently go +1 over? So... You're at 2000pts, right?

Now what if someone has a 2000pt even list with double FoC. Does the 1999+1 list refuse to play the guy with 2000, simply because he doesn't want to encounter a double FoC? Is he essentially saying to the person with a 2000pt army "Hey man, sorry but I do not want to play 2000pts.... but do you mind if we play 1999 and I go one over by mistake?"

Is that the point? If not, why don't people just say "This is my 2000pt list. I will not be fighting anyone who has double FoC, and will not be using it myself". If I seem clueless, it's because I am. :]

Thanks!

not sure i use a +1 as my code for i went under points

i usually play at 1850 but most my lists are either 184x +x there x is the amoutn of points i have left. if an opponent says hey I am 4 points over is that cool i'll just throw in an ammo runt or maybe another big choppa for my nob bikers or somethign like that

Yeah I hear ya. It's not just this forum, though. I hear people discussing it here around me and I have no idea why people don't say 2000pts.

It's people who insist that two FOC charts is OP.

Or to put it another way, people who want to deliberately nerf certain armies.
Either way, it's irritating as hell.
You may as well say "Not playing with any Heavy Supports, refuse to play against anyone who does".

Tournaments do the 1999+1pt so there can be 2 FOC used.

Yeah, people who make lists of 1,999+1 are people who want to play large games, but don't want to play two Force Oraganisation Charts.

Idiots, in other words.

I agree, 2 FOCs at 2k is now a standard. I think another trend that is starting is people refusing to play with those who use allies...a rule in the rulebook. Super irritating. It is the new rules and it does not really matter if you disagree with them or not, maybe make it a house rule if you must.

The "1999+1" format is shorthand for tournament organizers who want to run 2,000 point events without allowing two Force Organization charts. Like it or not, it looks to be a fairly standard format for major tournaments in the early days of 6th edition.

Being a Guard player I can just use the 1 FoC all the way up to some thing like 30,00pts (granted having the cash to make a 30,000pts list is insane but the Guard can do it ).
The only time I think I would use 2 FoCs is for when I play a 2,500 to 3,000pts game and even then that would be just for more Sentinel, Hydra, and LRBT squadrons

Testify wrote:It's people who insist that two FOC charts is OP.

Or to put it another way, people who want to deliberately nerf certain armies.
Either way, it's irritating as hell.
You may as well say "Not playing with any Heavy Supports, refuse to play against anyone who does".

Except there is a huge difference from saying "hey, I don't want to use double FoC because I know an IG player with an artillery fetish who will use six Manticores with no ill intent" and saying "I don't want to play with heavy support choices because my army has crappy heavy support choices and it isn't fair." The system is simply so easy to abuse it is funny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ribon Fox wrote:Being a Guard player I can just use the 1 FoC all the way up to some thing like 30,00pts (granted having the cash to make a 30,000pts list is insane but the Guard can do it ).

As I guard player I would be interested in seeing the absolute maximum point cost for an army we can get using one FoC, just to see. I mean it must be at least 10,000 when you include 6 platoons each with 5 infantry squads, 5 heavy weapon squads, and 2 special weapon squads, all with the most lascannons and plasma gun possible.

Buttons wrote:
Except there is a huge difference from saying "hey, I don't want to use double FoC because I know an IG player with an artillery fetish who will use six Manticores with no ill intent" and saying "I don't want to play with heavy support choices because my army has crappy heavy support choices and it isn't fair." The system is simply so easy to abuse it is funny.

Whereas a necron player taking a billion flyers at 1850 points isn't abusive?
Or a guard player taking 9 Vendettas at 1850.
Etc.

It's a way of saying 2000 pts but only 1 foc

Testify wrote:

Buttons wrote:
Except there is a huge difference from saying "hey, I don't want to use double FoC because I know an IG player with an artillery fetish who will use six Manticores with no ill intent" and saying "I don't want to play with heavy support choices because my army has crappy heavy support choices and it isn't fair." The system is simply so easy to abuse it is funny.

Whereas a necron player taking a billion flyers at 1850 points isn't abusive?
Or a guard player taking 9 Vendettas at 1850.
Etc.

I don't see how that really disproves my point? The whole system is easily abusable. IG at 2000 with 6 manticores, try to get first turn, by turn two all enemy vehicles and 60% of the army is dead because of the new blast rules regarding vehicles. Any remaining points can be spent on IG platoons spamming autocannons (in infantry squads, as well as HWS), use BiD to twin-link the guns for slightly worse than BS 2 against flyers, allowing you to slay them through sheer volume of fire.

The double force org is needed at 2000 for game balance. Not all armies are allowed stuff like vehicle squadrons, and find they run out of slots long before they run out of points to spend.

@Buttons: there was a thread on this forum about a year ago for people to post the most expensive list their codex could possibly make. i think blood angels won.

Kevlar wrote:The double force org is needed at 2000 for game balance. Not all armies are allowed stuff like vehicle squadrons, and find they run out of slots long before they run out of points to spend.

Yes, but it allows armies with vehicle squadrons to abuse the system further. Oh Tau guy, you get six hammerheads because of the expanded FoC? Well I am just taking 12 leman russes in 6 squadrons that can probably glance your tanks to death or wipe out a squad of battlesuits in a single turn of shooting. I agree expanding it might be good, but suddenly doubling it is too much. Perhaps add +1 HQ, Elite, FA, HS, and fortification, as well as +1 minimum troop and +1 optional troop in addition to +1 in each slot for allies at 2000 points, add one more to each slot and 2 to troops every 500 points.

So at 1999 points the FoC is
1-2 HQ
0-3 Elite
2-6 troop
0-3 FA
0-3 HS
0-1 fortifications
1 allied HQ
0-1 allied elite
1-2 allied troops
0-1 allied FA
0-1 allied HS

At 2000 points the FoC would be.
1-3 HQ
0-4 Elite
3-8 troop
0-4 FA
0-4 HS
0-2 fortifications
1-2 allied HQ
0-2 allied elite
2-4 allied troops
0-2 allied FA
0-2 allied HS

At 2500 points to FoC would be.
2-4 HQ
0-5 Elite
4-10 troop
0-5 FA
0-5 HS
0-3 fortifications
1-3 allied HQ
0-3 allied elite
3-6 allied troops
0-3 allied FA
0-3 allied HS

So you get the expanded FOC, but by the time you reach 6 in each slot you are at apocalypse levels anyway.

Thanks, I know the mechanic of allies+duel FoC, but I didn't get this 1999+1 lingo.

I fail to see what the big deal is?

The double FOC is simply a GW sales tactic.

Wether or not something is IN the BRB is irrelevant.

Tournaments will simply eradicate what excess GW as brought into 6E.

Garage Gamers will do the exact same thing.

I can vouch for my little group in that we are introducing 6E rules into our play slowly. We are not fans of double FOCS and Allies really... Both are abusive sales tactics that I personally will not be vernturing into on principle alone. I realize I will be at a disadvantage to other players, but i dont care.

The double FoC isn't a disadvantage to anyone. But it is a buff to some armies, a seriously needed one. The same for allies.

Name one broken combination and I will show you why it actually isn't broken.

I am not a fan of double foc either. It stops being warhammer and becomes spamhammer. Try to.beat 6 manticores and 6 vendetta...

All of my club tourneys this year will be 1999+1 lists for 3 reasons

1) my players will freak out if I trash their pet 2k lists
2) the idea of 6 elites or heavies in an opponent Xs force will cause all types of super whine
3) they'll want to keep those familiar restrictions of 1 FOC while learning new rules

That being said, I'll slowly sell them on the idea, and by January we'll be playing 2 FOCs with no worries.

Thats a codex problem, not a rule problem.

And you could take 6 Vendettas before already.

Not to mention the required 2 HQs and 4 Troops to unlock those 3 extra Manticores. Not as big a deal for Guard but for every other codex that can be a big deal.

There is a difference between 3 two flier squadrons, and 6 independent fliers.

All the duel FOC is, is a heavy handed attempt to sell more models.

Allies are almost fluffy, but can be abused pretty easily.

Grey Templar wrote:The double FoC isn't a disadvantage to anyone. But it is a buff to some armies, a seriously needed one. The same for allies.

Name one broken combination and I will show you why it actually isn't broken.

Space Wolves. Not quite broken, but it's very interesting. 30 ml's for 840pts.

IG. Leman Russ squadrons. Lots of them.

IG. Valk/Vend squadrons. Lots of them.

The problem with boosting other codices with this foc buff, boosted all of the codices.

A lazy solution to poor game design.

edit
All this grief about 1999+1 is ridiculous. TO's do all sorts of wonky stuff. Don't like it. Don't go to that tourney.

imweasel wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:The double FoC isn't a disadvantage to anyone. But it is a buff to some armies, a seriously needed one. The same for allies.

Name one broken combination and I will show you why it actually isn't broken.

Space Wolves. Not quite broken, but it's very interesting. 30 ml's for 840pts.

IG. Leman Russ squadrons. Lots of them.

IG. Valk/Vend squadrons. Lots of them.

The problem with boosting other codices with this foc buff, boosted all of the codices.

A lazy solution to poor game design.

edit
All this grief about 1999+1 is ridiculous. TO's do all sorts of wonky stuff. Don't like it. Don't go to that tourney.

Space Wolves: you are allowed 1 heavy support per allied detachment. So at most you get 2 long fang squads as allies, but only after buying 2 Grey Hunter squads and 2 HQs. I'd like to know what the supposedly main army has in it.

Valks and Vendettas are underpriced, being able to take more of them is not going to be any worse then it was before. Not a problem with double FoC.

At my local GW, an uber neckbeard said it was an optional thing.

Grey Templar wrote:

imweasel wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:The double FoC isn't a disadvantage to anyone. But it is a buff to some armies, a seriously needed one. The same for allies.

Name one broken combination and I will show you why it actually isn't broken.

Space Wolves. Not quite broken, but it's very interesting. 30 ml's for 840pts.

IG. Leman Russ squadrons. Lots of them.

IG. Valk/Vend squadrons. Lots of them.

The problem with boosting other codices with this foc buff, boosted all of the codices.

A lazy solution to poor game design.

edit
All this grief about 1999+1 is ridiculous. TO's do all sorts of wonky stuff. Don't like it. Don't go to that tourney.

Space Wolves: you are allowed 1 heavy support per allied detachment. So at most you get 2 long fang squads as allies, but only after buying 2 Grey Hunter squads and 2 HQs. I'd like to know what the supposedly main army has in it.

Valks and Vendettas are underpriced, being able to take more of them is not going to be any worse then it was before. Not a problem with double FoC.

I fail to see how having twice as many fliers isn't as big a problem as before. And if the FOC doubles the number you can take, its a problem with the FOC.

Space Wolves... 30 Missiles at 12 different targets for 840 points in 2000 point lists.

Yeah, go eat a fat one with that sort of shenanigans. Won't be making friends!

I'd bring 6 Lone Wolves and laugh.

Necrons could bring 2 Doomscythes and 4 Annihlation Barges. Or 6 Annihlation Barges.

It's not a balancing effort except for maybe one army... Tyranids. Potentially Eldar. Most others got a serious buff. It is just a sales ploy. I love allies for fluff wise and it's a great way to slow-grow armies. A small amount is playable while you build a new force. I'm cool with that.

Everyone seems so gung ho about having double force org, I'm still good using the standard, even up to 2500 points. I personally view the double force org thing to be Optional, kinda like Allies and Fortifications, so it's something to be decided on with your opponent or decided by a TO when organizing it.

Grey Templar wrote:
Space Wolves: you are allowed 1 heavy support per allied detachment. So at most you get 2 long fang squads as allies, but only after buying 2 Grey Hunter squads and 2 HQs. I'd like to know what the supposedly main army has in it.

How about...I dunno...space wolves? You know that at 2k points I get 2 FOC's right? I don't NEED allies. That gives me 6 heavy support choices. I can take 38 ml's, logan, a rp, 16 combi-plasma, 6 scoring units (and in 1 out of 6 missions, 12) and a couple of melta guns.

Grey Templar wrote:Valks and Vendettas are underpriced, being able to take more of them is not going to be any worse then it was before. Not a problem with double FoC.

It is the versatility with the extra FOC's that makes it good. I doubt if anyone would take less than 4 vet squads, which you have to take in two FOC's anyways.

Now you can break your squads up any way you want. And leman russ squadrons are going to be good. Couple with the fact you can take 6 heavy support choices in IG is going to be very, very good for IG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheKbob wrote:Space Wolves... 30 Missiles at 12 different targets for 840 points in 2000 point lists.

Yeah, go eat a fat one with that sort of shenanigans. Won't be making friends!

I'd bring 6 Lone Wolves and laugh.

Necrons could bring 2 Doomscythes and 4 Annihlation Barges. Or 6 Annihlation Barges.

It's not a balancing effort except for maybe one army... Tyranids. Potentially Eldar. Most others got a serious buff. It is just a sales ploy. I love allies for fluff wise and it's a great way to slow-grow armies. A small amount is playable while you build a new force. I'm cool with that.

I didn't think this was about making friends. I thought it was about the reasoning behind the 1999+1 lists that seems to have gotten some very sensitive people's panties in a bunch.

CrashCanuck wrote:Everyone seems so gung ho about having double force org, I'm still good using the standard, even up to 2500 points. I personally view the double force org thing to be Optional, kinda like Allies and Fortifications, so it's something to be decided on with your opponent or decided by a TO when organizing it.

Well that's not the rules. They're optional like FA, HS, and Elites are optional.

Grey Templar wrote:

CrashCanuck wrote:Everyone seems so gung ho about having double force org, I'm still good using the standard, even up to 2500 points. I personally view the double force org thing to be Optional, kinda like Allies and Fortifications, so it's something to be decided on with your opponent or decided by a TO when organizing it.

Well that's not the rules. They're optional like FA, HS, and Elites are optional.

Yeah, its the official rules.double the foc and to have forts and allies. Which is why I will play at 1850 or less so I don't have to worry about the headache two focs will be.

imweasel wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
Space Wolves: you are allowed 1 heavy support per allied detachment. So at most you get 2 long fang squads as allies, but only after buying 2 Grey Hunter squads and 2 HQs. I'd like to know what the supposedly main army has in it.

How about...I dunno...space wolves? You know that at 2k points I get 2 FOC's right? I don't NEED allies. That gives me 6 heavy support choices. I can take 38 ml's, logan, a rp, 16 combi-plasma, 6 scoring units (and in 1 out of 6 missions, 12) and a couple of melta guns.

Grey Templar wrote:Valks and Vendettas are underpriced, being able to take more of them is not going to be any worse then it was before. Not a problem with double FoC.

It is the versatility with the extra FOC's that makes it good. I doubt if anyone would take less than 4 vet squads, which you have to take in two FOC's anyways.

Now you can break your squads up any way you want. And leman russ squadrons are going to be good. Couple with the fact you can take 6 heavy support choices in IG is going to be very, very good for IG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheKbob wrote:Space Wolves... 30 Missiles at 12 different targets for 840 points in 2000 point lists.

Yeah, go eat a fat one with that sort of shenanigans. Won't be making friends!

I'd bring 6 Lone Wolves and laugh.

Necrons could bring 2 Doomscythes and 4 Annihlation Barges. Or 6 Annihlation Barges.

It's not a balancing effort except for maybe one army... Tyranids. Potentially Eldar. Most others got a serious buff. It is just a sales ploy. I love allies for fluff wise and it's a great way to slow-grow armies. A small amount is playable while you build a new force. I'm cool with that.

I didn't think this was about making friends. I thought it was about the reasoning behind the 1999+1 lists that seems to have gotten some very sensitive people's panties in a bunch.

Yes, those lists are scary, in 5th edition. Are we playing 5th? No. Everything has changed.

I dont see how a change from 5E to 6E changes how 2 FOCs are abusive vs normal?

Everyone on here has a different view on what is fun for them.

I personally will not be playing anyone who wants to double FOC. Why? I view it as broken and not fun. My gaming time is my own. I do with it what I want to do.

I see Tau, Nids and Eldar as needing the 2nd FOC to compete with most armies, everyone else it reeks of abuse.

CrashCanuck wrote:Everyone seems so gung ho about having double force org, I'm still good using the standard, even up to 2500 points. I personally view the double force org thing to be Optional, kinda like Allies and Fortifications, so it's something to be decided on with your opponent or decided by a TO when organizing it.

No, it's optional in that you can choose to only use a single FOC if you want. It's not optional in the sense that your opponent can veto it.

CrashCanuck wrote:Everyone seems so gung ho about having double force org, I'm still good using the standard, even up to 2500 points. I personally view the double force org thing to be Optional, kinda like Allies and Fortifications, so it's something to be decided on with your opponent or decided by a TO when organizing it.

Technically, if you insist on playing the rules as written, you can't veto allies, fortifications, or double charts at 2k plus.

EDIT: Also whenever I try to post this, the webpage says that my post is either in all-caps or has too many exclamation marks, yet I fail to see a single one.

RegalPhantom wrote:

CrashCanuck wrote:Everyone seems so gung ho about having double force org, I'm still good using the standard, even up to 2500 points. I personally view the double force org thing to be Optional, kinda like Allies and Fortifications, so it's something to be decided on with your opponent or decided by a TO when organizing it.

TECNICLY IF YOU INSSIST ON PLAYING THE RULES AS RITTEN YOU CANT VETO ALLYS FORTIFICATIONS OR DOUBLE CHARTS AT 2K PLUS!!!!

EDIT: ALSO WHENEVER I TRY TO POST THIS THE WEBPAEG SAYS THAT MY POST IS EITHER IN ALLCAPS OR HAS TO MANY EXLAIMATION MARKS YET I FAIL TOO SEE A SINGLE ONE!!!!

There's your problem, right there.

Seriously though, you should report the post so that a mod knows about the problem (and can tell an admin) or start a thread in nuts and bolts.

Kevlar wrote:The double force org is needed at 2000 for game balance. Not all armies are allowed stuff like vehicle squadrons, and find they run out of slots long before they run out of points to spend.

Which armies are these? I have yet to have a hard time filling out 2000 points for any army in 40k using a single FOC. Vehicle squadrons are not necessary to add up enough points in most lists to get to 2000 before filling the FOC. Heck with my armies I have a hard time filling up the FOC at 2000 points and wish I could spend more points...

Skriker

Since this has obviously turned from a simple question into a "X list is broken" one, I'll jump back in.

I do agree that it depends on what your idea of fun is, but I'm curious as to why people would rule out double FoC.. and I mean *automatically* ruling it out, regardless of the usage.

For example, at 2500pts I can *easily* create a simple list with four Troops choices and zero heavy support, that uses no demon princes. I can also bring Ahriman and an HQ sorcerer, and if I say "Oh look, I'm doubling up on the FoC", I can add a 3rd Sorcerer to the 2nd FoC detachment. I'll just write the list with 2 squads of Tsons in each detachment in order to get the 3rd sorcerer.

Hardly broken. Totally fluffy.

Would you refuse to play that? If not, your idea of double FoC might not be as hostile as some think. I'd say there's a lot of "It depends" that will be happening in 6th, and I for one and quite pleased with the rules. I won't play any quad Lords of Change lists in friendly games for example. Don't care if it's legal, don't care if he has fun using it.

Skriker wrote:

Kevlar wrote:The double force org is needed at 2000 for game balance. Not all armies are allowed stuff like vehicle squadrons, and find they run out of slots long before they run out of points to spend.

Which armies are these? I have yet to have a hard time filling out 2000 points for any army in 40k using a single FOC. Vehicle squadrons are not necessary to add up enough points in most lists to get to 2000 before filling the FOC. Heck with my armies I have a hard time filling up the FOC at 2000 points and wish I could spend more points...

Skriker

I understand skriker but take Eldar for example their troops are underwhelming. Their elite spots are extremely crowded double FOC helps them deploy a more competiitve army. Whereas my Deathwing is squeeking in at 2000 and need more points. not more FOC slots.

Anybody trying to write a beatface list will always find a way to make the cheesiest list around. Double force org v regular force org won't change that.

What the double force org does do, though, is allow for a more specialized army. At 2000 pts, I can now take 3 dakkajets, 10 deffkoptas, and 20 stormboyz with Zagstrukk for my flying circus with Wazdakka making bikers troops. I now have a really fun, really cool list. It is somewhat competitive now, but isn't gamebreakingly so.

The game has changed. At 2000 pts, you get a second force org. You always can take allies and you can always take fortifications. If you don't like these changes, play 5th edition or man up and get over it. They are part of the game now.

-cgmckenzie

Buttons wrote:
As I guard player I would be interested in seeing the absolute maximum point cost for an army we can get using one FoC, just to see. I mean it must be at least 10,000 when you include 6 platoons each with 5 infantry squads, 5 heavy weapon squads, and 2 special weapon squads, all with the most lascannons and plasma gun possible.

I make it out to around 17,000pts, from one FoC without using special characters

I don't really see that much of an issue with it. It opens up a lot more options for armies which may start to become stale at higher levels. Also at 2k on the mark, I doubt spamming heavy support heavily will prove to be a good idea. It may work in some of the missions, but it will open up weaknesses to others. The fortification thing irks me a little, but more in the way that I'm just seeing bastions everywhere at the moment; people are still checking it out I suppose and we'll eventually start to get a nice wave of themed terrain. At least hopefully, of course not officially just people converting or building their own for their specific force.

htj wrote:

RegalPhantom wrote:

CrashCanuck wrote:Everyone seems so gung ho about having double force org, I'm still good using the standard, even up to 2500 points. I personally view the double force org thing to be Optional, kinda like Allies and Fortifications, so it's something to be decided on with your opponent or decided by a TO when organizing it.

TECNICLY IF YOU INSSIST ON PLAYING THE RULES AS RITTEN YOU CANT VETO ALLYS FORTIFICATIONS OR DOUBLE CHARTS AT 2K PLUS!!!!

EDIT: ALSO WHENEVER I TRY TO POST THIS THE WEBPAEG SAYS THAT MY POST IS EITHER IN ALLCAPS OR HAS TO MANY EXLAIMATION MARKS YET I FAIL TOO SEE A SINGLE ONE!!!!

There's your problem, right there.

Seriously though, you should report the post so that a mod knows about the problem (and can tell an admin) or start a thread in nuts and bolts.

It's the title.

And the funny thing about the Fortifications is that you can have at most 2.

Are 2 Bastions really all that scary?


Now, 2 Fortresses of Redemption are scary. But thats 500 points of your opponents army that can't move or score and is stuck in his deployment zone that he will probably have another 500 points of his army sitting inside to man the weapons. Now does it sound all that scary?

Exactly, but the sky must fall after all.

The only part of it that annoyed me was how generic it seemed to have something like Necrons with Orks using some pristine bastion. Even then it's only extremely minor. To some armies I can see it being an issue, but to most they'll just have to make a slight adjustment to deal with it.

Yeah, thats the one thing thats annoying.

We need faction specific terrain GW!


Orks, Chaos, and Tau can use Imperial terrain all they want, it makes sense. But Nids and Eldar need something to call their own. And Tau, Chaos, and Orks need their own stuff too.

And Daemons with the skyshield.

The helipad so finely crafted daemonic essences from the immaterium can lock onto its position and phase into real space flawlessly. Should go on the back of the box for it.

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Do all of you really have that many TFGs at your FLGS?

I'm excited about 2 FOC for one reason.... actually 3.

1) I can now take enough Looted Wagons for my army. Gretching and Lootas finally have a ride.

2) I can add another HQ or two be it a Big Mek or whatever, it offers me a chance to make cool character convertions.

3) I can actually use all my stupid Deffkopta models, plus buggies and Dakkajetz instead of having to shelf my very expencive flyers or convertions.

marv335 wrote:

Buttons wrote:
As I guard player I would be interested in seeing the absolute maximum point cost for an army we can get using one FoC, just to see. I mean it must be at least 10,000 when you include 6 platoons each with 5 infantry squads, 5 heavy weapon squads, and 2 special weapon squads, all with the most lascannons and plasma gun possible.

I make it out to around 17,000pts, from one FoC without using special characters

With full upgrades, full platoons, full squads, Dedicated Transports and non-foc units (priest and techpriest) you can max out (literally absolute max points) at 22464 points in one FOC, no special characters. Of course equivalent points of any army will likely trounce that handily on the table.

:3 I love guard.


More on topic:
Personally I don't see how 1 FOC is limiting at 2000 points. I won't be playing with double FOCs most of the time simply because it just leaves too much opportunity for spamming units or making stupid cheesy lists.

Luckily pretty much everyone I play with agrees that 1999+1 is best. Hooray!

What people seem to not be getting is that with the double force org, you still only have 2k points to spend with a 2 HQ/4 troop minimum.

Sure, you might have somebody max out one particular unit, but there is a counterside to it. I bring 6 dakkajets, 18 killa kans, and 2 KFF's. That leaves me enough points for 5 minimum units of grots. You can counter with LRBT, vendettas, and penal legions in grosser numbers than I can. Or dark lances. Or monstrous creatures. Or orks of your own. I can have a bonkers list, but you can, too. Stop complaining and enjoy it.

I really want to do this list now, though.

-cgmckenzie

Yeah, lets take a look at some armies that would supposedly be in major cheese territory with 2 FoCs.


Space Wolves: 2 Rune Priests and 4 squads of Grey Hunters. Thats almost half your points.

Grey Knights: So its either Draigo, Librarian, and 4 squads of Paladins for Dragiowing. Or its Crowe, Libby, and 4 squads of Purifiers. Or Grandmaster, Libby, and 4 squads of Terminators. Draigowing = 1610 points minimum(Paladins are in 5 man squads and Lvl3 with Stave on Libby), Purifiers =1345(10 man squads, libby has stuff), and basic terminators and generic HQ is 1290(4 5 man terminator squads)

Did I mention these numbers don't include any upgrades on the troops choices? Just some basic equipment on the Librarians and Grandmasters.

How is this broken again?

Am I the only one who has no trouble with any of my armies filling out 2k in one FOC? Sure, it's mostly filled out by that point, but I've never gone "Well, now almost all of my slots are filled up, and I've still got points left, damn." Heck, I usually only fill out one selection, regardless of army (usually Heavy Support, but Orks tend to do Elites as well). Are there really so many armies that are so low on choices that the second FOC is needed to feasibly run 2k? Because I've been doing it fine for years now. Plus, there's now even less chance to run into the FOC limit with allies and fortifications adding in more slots to toss points into.

Personally...I'm just not a fan of the double FOC. As I said, I've never once had issues running 2k points with a single FOC. There's just too much potential for abuse with the double chart. Sure, there's potential for abuse in every list now, but doubling it just opens it up even more. I agree that it would've been more balanced to simply go plus one for every slot above 2k, flat-out adding a second FOC is just screaming to be abused.

Its not that you've filled your first FoC, its that some slots on your FoC are filled.

I run out of FA choices at 1000(because I'm taking Land Speeders), so I will unlock the second FoC when I can so I can run more Landspeeders.


It allows theme armies to be themed. It would be against the theme to take Dreadnoughts or Terminators in a White Scars bike army, but in 5th they would be forced to take something like that eventually because the FoC had been filled in the themed areas.

So it's not about filling the FOC. It's about the fact certain FOC slots are full (Despite the fact that others are, invariably, nearly or completely empty). The arguement for 2 FOC's seems to be, roughly, that it allows you to bring enough of certain things for certain armies, which is balanced by available points for other things (such as troops). Or that it allows you to do theme armies.

So... why have a FOC at all? It's not hard to make a 2000 point army within the current FOC, that's not the arguement. It's hard to make a 'comeptitive' (i.e. powerful) army with certain codecies with only 3 Elite or FA slots.
If the 'balance' all comes from the fact that these fancy extra slots will eat all your points, then the FOC is entirely unnecessary, at any points value.

It seems a flawed point, is all I'm saying.

AlexCage wrote:So it's not about filling the FOC. It's about the fact certain FOC slots are full (Despite the fact that others are, invariably, nearly or completely empty). The arguement for 2 FOC's seems to be, roughly, that it allows you to bring enough of certain things for certain armies, which is balanced by available points for other things (such as troops). Or that it allows you to do theme armies.

So... why have a FOC at all? It's not hard to make a 2000 point army within the current FOC, that's not the arguement. It's hard to make a 'comeptitive' (i.e. powerful) army with certain codecies with only 3 Elite or FA slots.
If the 'balance' all comes from the fact that these fancy extra slots will eat all your points, then the FOC is entirely unnecessary, at any points value.

It seems a flawed point, is all I'm saying.

You sir, earned an exalt. Well said.

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, lets take a look at some armies that would supposedly be in major cheese territory with 2 FoCs.


Space Wolves: 2 Rune Priests and 4 squads of Grey Hunters. Thats almost half your points.

2 Rune Priest and 4 full sized squads of Grey Hunters is 800 points, which is not "almost half". You could easily fit another GH squad in their and give them all two meltaguns each for 1000 points total, with the 6 ML long fangs costing 840, with enough points for an Aegis Defense Line and/or a wolf guard pack. Of course, it's more likely that min size squads will be taken (like they are now) to free up more points. nothing in the detachment has to be full sized

Grey Knights: So its either Draigo, Librarian, and 4 squads of Paladins for Dragiowing. Or its Crowe, Libby, and 4 squads of Purifiers. Or Grandmaster, Libby, and 4 squads of Terminators. Draigowing = 1610 points minimum(Paladins are in 5 man squads and Lvl3 with Stave on Libby), Purifiers =1345(10 man squads, libby has stuff), and basic terminators and generic HQ is 1290(4 5 man terminator squads)

Did I mention these numbers don't include any upgrades on the troops choices? Just some basic equipment on the Librarians and Grandmasters.

You're acting like the troop choices are holding the army back. They're not. There's also the fact that your minimums are complete gak. The min for a two detachment Draigowing is more like 645 with 4 single paladins and without the stave and the lv 3 (because that's 85 extra points for wargear that no one ever takes,

How is this broken again?

It broken because it supports awful game design and removes a restriction that people are meant to work with, rather than being able to put down 6 of whatever-they-want. it just doesn't look that way because you're purposely using bad examples

So... why have a FOC at all? It's not hard to make a 2000 point army within the current FOC, that's not the arguement. It's hard to make a 'comeptitive' (i.e. powerful) army with certain codecies with only 3 Elite or FA slots.

True enough. If you're playing themed armies with friends, then a Force Org really isn't necessary. This isn't really a new concept, of course. Apocalypse has been out for several years now, and it doesn't use Force Org, or even restrict you to one codex. It's just understood that you're playing for the spectacle and assumed that you and your opponent will pick mutually-agreeable lists.

The issue with double force orgs really only comes up if you try to play competitively.

If there are choices out there which are cheaper than they should be (Grey Hunters, Long Fangs, Vendettas, Psyfleman Dreads, GK henchmen, for some widely-accepted examples), then double force org allows you to take even more of the things which are underpriced, thus exacerbating the issue/leveraging their efficiency advantage even further.

If you think that no units in 40k are underpointed, then you wouldn't see double force org as broken. If on the other hand you do think that certain units are underpriced, then the conclusion that double force org makes that problem worse is almost inescapable.

htj wrote:Seriously though, you should report the post so that a mod knows about the problem (and can tell an admin) or start a thread in nuts and bolts.

The warning also triggers if the subject line of your message has no capital letters/is all numbers. Since the thread title was (I just edited it) all numbers, it triggered the warning on every post, because no one changed the subject line of their posts to add any words.

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Grey Knights: So its either Draigo, Librarian, and 4 squads of Paladins for Dragiowing. Or its Crowe, Libby, and 4 squads of Purifiers. Or Grandmaster, Libby, and 4 squads of Terminators. Draigowing = 1610 points minimum(Paladins are in 5 man squads and Lvl3 with Stave on Libby), Purifiers =1345(10 man squads, libby has stuff), and basic terminators and generic HQ is 1290(4 5 man terminator squads)

Did I mention these numbers don't include any upgrades on the troops choices? Just some basic equipment on the Librarians and Grandmasters.

You're acting like the troop choices are holding the army back. They're not. There's also the fact that your minimums are complete gak. The min for a two detachment Draigowing is more like 645 with 4 single paladins and without the stave and the lv 3 (because that's 85 extra points for wargear that no one ever takes,

What?

Warding Staves get taken all the time on Librarians and the Lvl3 upgrade is just silly to leave at home.

And who the hell is going to run single paladins? The point of paladins is a squad of 2 wound terminators. Taking only one defeats the purpose. He can't even take a Psycannon.

True, the Troops choices are good but thats hardly a point against double FoCs.

Grey Templar wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Grey Knights: So its either Draigo, Librarian, and 4 squads of Paladins for Dragiowing. Or its Crowe, Libby, and 4 squads of Purifiers. Or Grandmaster, Libby, and 4 squads of Terminators. Draigowing = 1610 points minimum(Paladins are in 5 man squads and Lvl3 with Stave on Libby), Purifiers =1345(10 man squads, libby has stuff), and basic terminators and generic HQ is 1290(4 5 man terminator squads)

Did I mention these numbers don't include any upgrades on the troops choices? Just some basic equipment on the Librarians and Grandmasters.

You're acting like the troop choices are holding the army back. They're not. There's also the fact that your minimums are complete gak. The min for a two detachment Draigowing is more like 645 with 4 single paladins and without the stave and the lv 3 (because that's 85 extra points for wargear that no one ever takes,

What?

Warding Staves get taken all the time on Librarians and the Lvl3 upgrade is just silly to leave at home.

And who the hell is going to run single paladins? The point of paladins is a squad of 2 wound terminators. Taking only one defeats the purpose. He can't even take a Psycannon.

True, the Troops choices are good but thats hardly a point against double FoCs.

If the stave and Lv3 is taken all the time, then I've never seen it

The point of the single paladin squads example is not if people would, but that they can do that if they want to. The mandatory two HQs and four troops are not a real restriction if the player doesn't want them to be.

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Grey Knights: So its either Draigo, Librarian, and 4 squads of Paladins for Dragiowing. Or its Crowe, Libby, and 4 squads of Purifiers. Or Grandmaster, Libby, and 4 squads of Terminators. Draigowing = 1610 points minimum(Paladins are in 5 man squads and Lvl3 with Stave on Libby), Purifiers =1345(10 man squads, libby has stuff), and basic terminators and generic HQ is 1290(4 5 man terminator squads)

Did I mention these numbers don't include any upgrades on the troops choices? Just some basic equipment on the Librarians and Grandmasters.

You're acting like the troop choices are holding the army back. They're not. There's also the fact that your minimums are complete gak. The min for a two detachment Draigowing is more like 645 with 4 single paladins and without the stave and the lv 3 (because that's 85 extra points for wargear that no one ever takes,

What?

Warding Staves get taken all the time on Librarians and the Lvl3 upgrade is just silly to leave at home.

And who the hell is going to run single paladins? The point of paladins is a squad of 2 wound terminators. Taking only one defeats the purpose. He can't even take a Psycannon.

True, the Troops choices are good but thats hardly a point against double FoCs.

If the stave and Lv3 is taken all the time, then I've never seen it

The point of the single paladin squads example is not if people would, but that they can do that if they want to. The mandatory two HQs and four troops are not a real restriction if the player doesn't want them to be.

But we deal with realistic situations. Realistically, you arn't going to take minimum Paladin squads and bare bones HQs.

Your experience on Libby equipment is dependent on your local Meta. Your GK players must like keeping their HQs cheap. Fair enough.



The point I was getting at is that 2 FoCs is hardly the big deal it might seem. The 2 HQ and 4 Troops minimum means that in order to spam, you need to buy 6 units. Units that can eat up alot of points.

You need scoring units now more then ever, 5 out of 6 missions are objective based, and you arn't going to just let them sit around and score. They need to get upgrades of some kind and contribute to the battle.



Regardless, people need to accept the fact that there are now 2 FoCs avaliable at 2k, as well as Allies and Fortifications. Rules change. Either play 6th, or don't. You shouldn't cherry pick what rules you do and don't like just because you don't like parts of it. The rule set is designed to work together, once you start changing it you arn't playing Warhammer anymore. You're playing Myway'sbetterhammer. Of course you're free to do that, but don't whine about how you've been forced to change stuff on the internet.

Really, the only two armies that I am concerned with double FoCs are IGs and Necrons, due to the ridiculous amount of cheap flyers they can spam.

^says the guard player

Even at 1 FoC, they could still spam tons of Flyers. Crons have them as DTs for goodness sakes.

Again, thats a codex problem, not a problem with having double FoC.

At that point you'll probably be playing apocalypse anyway. Which again somewhat detracts from the apparent threat of it.

Then fliers are only strong at the moment due to the lack of ways to really deal with them. That'll probably change as new books come out.

Grey Templar wrote:^says the guard player

Even at 1 FoC, they could still spam tons of Flyers. Crons have them as DTs for goodness sakes.

Again, thats a codex problem, not a problem with having double FoC.

You wont be so smug if I somehow won the lottery and start throwing 9+ flyers at you everyday

The 1999+1 is how we are going to play tournaments in my area.

The double FOC is just too easy to abuse.

18 Obliterators?
18 Crisis Suits?
18 Leman Russ Tanks?

The list goes on an on.

Although I do admit the Wolf List with the 6 Squads of Long Fangs is just plain wrong.

Reivax26 wrote:The 1999+1 is how we are going to play tournaments in my area.

The double FOC is just too easy to abuse.

18 Obliterators?
18 Crisis Suits?
18 Leman Russ Tanks?

The list goes on an on.

Although I do admit the Wolf List with the 6 Squads of Long Fangs is just plain wrong.

18 Crisis suits or Obliterators would actually be what either CSM or Tau needs to compete at that point level.
18 Basic Russes would be 2700 points (assuming all basics LRBT with no upgrades), so you are looking at 3000+ point games, in which case there are plenty of counters to them.

Long Fang's problem is that that they are way undercosted, like many other things in their codex.

The biggest thing people seem to be forgetting is the cost of the spam. Simply put, the more points that they put into LRBT or vendettas, the less points they are putting into troops that can do their job among other things.

A highly specialized list isn't inherently a bad thing, but will get destroyed when facing a list that isn't in its target audience.

-cgmckenzie

Yeah, I doubt if given the choice they'd go for 18 Crisis Suits anyway. Not that they're bad, but there are other options making restricting yourself in one direction a bit dumb.

As a Chaos and Necron player, double force org is wonderful! I can take 36 Wraiths at 2k, and I'm probably not gonna win, but it will look cool IMO. I also agree with the 18 oblits, that would be nice, if only I had some

If the new Chaos codex doesn't nerf Lash of Submission, don't be surprised if you see the Double Lash Prince setup with maxed out Obliterators above 2k.

My god at all the AP2 Templates that would be dropping everywhere from the Plasma Cannons.

Lash of Submission is one of "those things" that just might disappear when a new author comes along. It's not really embedded in the fluff enough to stay. but what do I know?

Jackster wrote:Really, the only two armies that I am concerned with double FoCs are IGs and Necrons, due to the ridiculous amount of cheap flyers they can spam.

Space Wolves can spam a ridiculous amount of ml's at 2k points, as well as a ridiculous amount of combi weapons. Without taking any armor which helps negate necrons huge advantages vs mechanized lists. Since you are going to see a lot more necrons, this only helps the puppies in the meta game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cgmckenzie wrote:The biggest thing people seem to be forgetting is the cost of the spam. Simply put, the more points that they put into LRBT or vendettas, the less points they are putting into troops that can do their job among other things.

A highly specialized list isn't inherently a bad thing, but will get destroyed when facing a list that isn't in its target audience.

-cgmckenzie

Why in the world would such a list/player care about scoring when all they do is table their opponent?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lolcanoe wrote:As a Chaos and Necron player, double force org is wonderful! I can take 36 Wraiths at 2k, and I'm probably not gonna win, but it will look cool IMO. I also agree with the 18 oblits, that would be nice, if only I had some

If you think that's good, wait until you see the roaring come back nob bikers are going to make.

That's the army that is really going to scare the crap out of me.

I largely fail to see the problem with having two FOC's.. At least some armies won't be obligated to make sub-optimal choices anymore just so they can reach 2000 points. I'm not really afraid of people spamming things like vendetta's anyway but that might be because my gaming group doesn't have the cash for lists like that

Brometheus wrote:Lash of Submission is one of "those things" that just might disappear when a new author comes along. It's not really embedded in the fluff enough to stay. but what do I know?

Lash will probably either stay, or change if it goes into a "Lore of Slaanesh" style

If you think that's good, wait until you see the roaring come back nob bikers are going to make.

Now that Vindicators and S10 vehicles are more useful, I doubt we'll see to much of a resurgence.

Robbietobbie wrote:I largely fail to see the problem with having two FOC's.. At least some armies won't be obligated to make sub-optimal choices anymore just so they can reach 2000 points. I'm not really afraid of people spamming things like vendetta's anyway but that might be because my gaming group doesn't have the cash for lists like that

So its ok for your meta, so it shouldnt be a problem for anyone else?


Brilliant.

imweasel wrote:

Jackster wrote:Really, the only two armies that I am concerned with double FoCs are IGs and Necrons, due to the ridiculous amount of cheap flyers they can spam.

Space Wolves can spam a ridiculous amount of ml's at 2k points, as well as a ridiculous amount of combi weapons. Without taking any armor which helps negate necrons huge advantages vs mechanized lists. Since you are going to see a lot more necrons, this only helps the puppies in the meta game.

They could have done that before already. That problem lies in mostly with their codex.

Disclaimer: I'm against it because it encourages poor army design.

For a faction like Eldar or Tyranids, I support it, otherwise, it is completely unnecessary.

It supports the net-list concept which I find so awful; repetition repetition repetition. I like to play with dual landraiders (assault ramps) but otherwise I like a tactically-diverse army.

Jackster wrote:

imweasel wrote:

Jackster wrote:Really, the only two armies that I am concerned with double FoCs are IGs and Necrons, due to the ridiculous amount of cheap flyers they can spam.

Space Wolves can spam a ridiculous amount of ml's at 2k points, as well as a ridiculous amount of combi weapons. Without taking any armor which helps negate necrons huge advantages vs mechanized lists. Since you are going to see a lot more necrons, this only helps the puppies in the meta game.

They could have done that before already. That problem lies in mostly with their codex.

I could never spam this many...especially twin linked.

Looks like everyone in this thread missed the big issue of 2000+ points: 12 henchmen squads with Coteaz. I seem to remember everyone running for the hills from that when the rumors of GK hit back in 5th. I'm sure somebody must have mentioned it elsewhere. 12 henchmen squads with up to 12 dakka dreads.

timetowaste85 wrote:Looks like everyone in this thread missed the big issue of 2000+ points: 12 henchmen squads with Coteaz. I seem to remember everyone running for the hills from that when the rumors of GK hit back in 5th. I'm sure somebody must have mentioned it elsewhere. 12 henchmen squads with up to 12 dakka dreads.

Amazing! I didn't know Coteaz could gain an additional +1000 points to his army list! No wonder they are so overpowered!

Coteaz = 100
Librarian with three powers of choice, including Shrouding = 165
10 three man henchmen squads, 1 Chimera, 9 psybolt razorbacks, 20 assorted plasmaguns and meltaguns, every squad with a meltabomb = 875pts
6 psyfleman dreads = 810
Aegis Defense line = 50
2000pts.

It really can get silly.

I'm on the fence about this whole discussion.

On one hand it doesn't really bother me for 2 reasons.

1. I play 1500-1850 99% of the time, so there's no second FoC anyways.
2. Who's going to pay the cash to build one of these hardcore armies only to have it benched, either by TOs forcing only 1 FoC, or by just running out of opponents to play after they are sick of it?

On the other hand, the FoC was a balancing tool in a lot of ways. Some units are (were? 6th is still too new to judge everything by the same brush) just so amazingly awesome for their points the only thing that stopped people from using nothing BUT them was the FoC.

30 Missile Long Fangs = 840 points of flexible death...and you just KNOW they will be getting flak missiles sooner or later. Hell, the SW elite slots were kind of packed as well, so it helps them there as well.
6 Annihilation barges = 540 points of AV13 Anti-light vehicle/infantry death.
I don't even want to do the math on a BA list with 6-9 predators of various types, but that could be annoying. Hell, 6 dev squads jammed behind some fortifications with FnP would be rough as well.
Crisis spam Tau wouldn't be fun to play against.
6 Ymgarl stealer squads? 6 Hive Guard packs? Hell, 3 of each would be mean enough. Then you get weird stuff like 6 Trygons or 120+ gargoyles.
18 Typhoon speeder BT list = yuck.

I mean, sure, it provides more opportunities for flavorful lists, but it also gives power gamers more tools to make the game less fun for people.It also removes the harder decisions of what to take after you max out on the good stuff when you can just take MORE of the really good stuff.

It boils down to the haves vs have nots.

Double FOC is great for those with the money to invest into tournament ready armies and bits to complete their armies. Most experienced tourney goers are not phased by this.

It is your average player who can field a half decent army of any particular kind that gets blown out of the water of facing the prospects of a list that adds more of something their lists either fear or dread.

Most of the responders here who argue for Double FOC are those who have the time and/or money to invest in that particular play of WH40k.

If you argue that it is not a disadvantage, your not technically wrong, as all codices benefit from this. Perhaps not all armies can fully take advantage of the 2x FOC, but it gives you the ability to field in spades what makes that codex strong.

If the examples happen to IG, GK, SW armies, then it shouldn't be a surprise; these codices are already hailed as strong rulebooks to begin with for their respective armies. Double FOC allows their armies to reach higher levels of efficiency.

I can only see this being a problem for players who cannot reach their codice's maximum potential under the new rules strictly because of two reasons; an inflexibility to adapt to a new rule set or because they cannot afford to adapt.

Of course, this is a friendly game, so players have to be ready to field armies for 1999+1 or 2000 points. If a tourney allows 1 FOC, then you have to accept it or move on. if it is 2x FOC, same rules apply.

But under friendly games, both players have to decide how they want to play. Its just courtesy for those with more (experience, money, ect.) to play down to those who cannot do what those with more can.

I do not think many want to see an Ork list field 360 Ork boyz on one table. I daresay you may run out of room.

If I fielded 360 boyz, I would be elated. I would also be incredibly rich.

I like it because it will allow me to field 3 dakkajets and all my deffkoptas(got 15 for 50USD from somebody on ebay) along with enough to make a true speed freeks list. This isn't too crazy expensive, especially since I have the requisite 4 troops sitting in my carry case(grots are cheap ) and normally run 2 HQ's. It also helps out some of the weaker codices who rely heavily on HQ choices(orks come to mind again).

But, as is any part of the game, there will be power gamers who figure out ways to break it. The best way to handle this is to simply not play them and get back to enjoying the game.

-cgmckenzie

imweasel wrote:
Brilliant.

Like I said.. me not being afraid of spamlists is mostly due to my meta.. I also said that it is a much needed option for some armies.. Selective reading?

If people spam certain things just don't play then anymore.. If it's at tournaments well you probably know you should have expected it and been able to counter it

Using only the normal FoC an IG player can reach around 21359p (this is without allies and fortifications).

Milisim wrote:I personally will not be playing anyone who wants to double FOC. Why? I view it as broken and not fun. My gaming time is my own. I do with it what I want to do.

I see Tau, Nids and Eldar as needing the 2nd FOC to compete with most armies, everyone else it reeks of abuse.

That's the problem precisely; the solution is for GW to update codices promptly (or - unbelievable as it might seem - for the studio to adequately balance their lists), not to introduce a sticking-plaster solution which already-overpowered/undercosted armies can further exploit.

Milisim wrote:I personally will not be playing anyone who wants to double FOC. Why? I view it as broken and not fun. My gaming time is my own. I do with it what I want to do.

I see Tau, Nids and Eldar as needing the 2nd FOC to compete with most armies, everyone else it reeks of abuse.

You are, of course, free to play whoever you want for whatever reason.

But using a 2nd FOC as your reason is about as sensible as not playing them because they've chosen to use 2 Heavy Support slots in a single FOC, or they've chosen to use 3 Troops slots. Or they chose to wear a red T-shirt.

The bottom line is, this is a game. If you don't think you are going to have fun playing against someone's list, DON'T PLAY THEM. If a tournament puts in wonky restrictions you don't like, get over it, it is their right and you don't have to play.

Everything is optional. (except death and taxes)

I dont understand this nonsense at all. Why is the community SOOOO quick to kill off a rule? 1999+1???? Its nonsense! Just play as the damn rules are written!

salix_fatuus wrote:Using only the normal FoC an IG player can reach around 21359p (this is without allies and fortifications).

So?

Thats not the point. The point is that armies have access to more slots then they normally would have otherwise. It would be silly for a Drop Troop regiment to have to get a bunch of LRBTs just to make their points instead of being fluffy and taking Valks. Likewise it would be silly for a Armored Regiment to have to take some Vendettas instead of LRBTs just because they ran out of HS slots.

sfshilo wrote:I dont understand this nonsense at all. Why is the community SOOOO quick to kill off a rule? 1999+1???? Its nonsense! Just play as the damn rules are written!

Do you agree that the Annihilation Barge is underpriced at 90pts?

In most Necron armies, this isn't too big a deal, because the most the player can take is three of them, and that's if they don't want any spyders. With double force org, the player can take six ABs for 540 and still have 1460pts for the rest of their army. Or 360 for four ABs AND still take two units of spyders.

The limits the normal force org puts on spamming the best units in the game are functionally removed if you double that force org.

Yes, but most tournaments are under 2k anyway and you can always play smaller games.

If you don't like double FoC, play small games.

Grey Templar wrote:

salix_fatuus wrote:Using only the normal FoC an IG player can reach around 21359p (this is without allies and fortifications).

So?

Thats not the point. The point is that armies have access to more slots then they normally would have otherwise. It would be silly for a Drop Troop regiment to have to get a bunch of LRBTs just to make their points instead of being fluffy and taking Valks. Likewise it would be silly for a Armored Regiment to have to take some Vendettas instead of LRBTs just because they ran out of HS slots.

I was just saying. No real point intended only the fact that IG can if they want (and you have an insane amount of money) field up to about 21k in points.

Yeah, and BAs can have upwards of 25K in one FoC with Deathcompany. Chaos can have infinite points thanks to summoned daemons.

Saying "if you don't like it, don't play it" is a facile argument.

The question should be whether 2000 dual-FoC is good for game balance and I don't believe the answer is "yes."

Some need more slots for FoC; as I stated previously, Eldar and Nids need big help there. But that help should come in re-working their codices, make Striking Scorpions or Fire Dragons troops and make them high-priced or something, don't just apply a universal bandage.

Mannahnin wrote:

sfshilo wrote:I dont understand this nonsense at all. Why is the community SOOOO quick to kill off a rule? 1999+1???? Its nonsense! Just play as the damn rules are written!

Do you agree that the Annihilation Barge is underpriced at 90pts?

In most Necron armies, this isn't too big a deal, because the most the player can take is three of them, and that's if they don't want any spyders. With double force org, the player can take six ABs for 540 and still have 1460pts for the rest of their army. Or 360 for four ABs AND still take two units of spyders.

The limits the normal force org puts on spamming the best units in the game are functionally removed if you double that force org.

I don't know why everyone's planning these "Maxed out vehicle lists" Several armies have plenty of ways to deal with maxed out FoC with vehicles like crons.

Sternguard bombs for example (4-6 combi melta podded and squadded, only should take about three to deal with them each), than you got wolf scouts, Daemons who don't even care, orks would have either ton of numbers, cover saves, kanwalls, Dark eldar will just last and fire a ton of dark lances...

The problem with these "Panicked" FoC lists is assuming that everything stays the same when you double points, had a recent game where someone took nothing but GH and Longfangs vs my CSM, were transports popped? Sure, but than plasma cannons and plague marines got up close enough to begin to do damage, same guy ended up fighting a nid list and couldn't end up dealing with the flyrants and tyrannofex's 2+ saves, and than of course with the limited number of cover he was also at ease for a podded Doom of malan.

The thing about the double FoC is that if you make a spam list, you better make sure that list really is able to deal with all corners! There's plenty that can upset the balance should your list not be tweaked perfectly.

n0t_u wrote:And Daemons with the skyshield.

The helipad so finely crafted daemonic essences from the immaterium can lock onto its position and phase into real space flawlessly. Should go on the back of the box for it.

Hahahahahahaha! Awesome!

SKYSHIELD LANDING PAD! New and Improved! Now with Daemonic Essence!



Skriker

I think somewhere in the painting and modelling subforum there is some guy who made a demonic skyshield landing pad.

so if it's 1999+1, so 1999 and I just happen to go 1 over, then I'm at 2000 points and 2 FOCs are unlocked, so I just happen to take a 2nd FOC

UMGuy wrote:I agree, 2 FOCs at 2k is now a standard. I think another trend that is starting is people refusing to play with those who use allies...a rule in the rulebook. Super irritating. It is the new rules and it does not really matter if you disagree with them or not, maybe make it a house rule if you must.

Some of us still care for fluff instead of WAAC - what allies basically is with very few exceptions, e.g. CSM and Demons. Same goes for Double FOC. Thinking most people will use it to create a more fitting army? We'll more likely see it being used to get more cheese in.

why not just limit any choice outside of troops to 0-3 and troops to 0-6.

My stance is "Don't fix what is not broken".

Playing at 2k with 1 FoC seemed to having worked quite well in 5th and I don't see 2 FoC doing any good to the game at all.

Just image the new pre-6th Necrons with 4 CCBs. Fun?

Sigvatr wrote:

UMGuy wrote:I agree, 2 FOCs at 2k is now a standard. I think another trend that is starting is people refusing to play with those who use allies...a rule in the rulebook. Super irritating. It is the new rules and it does not really matter if you disagree with them or not, maybe make it a house rule if you must.

Some of us still care for fluff instead of WAAC - what allies basically is with very few exceptions, e.g. CSM and Demons. Same goes for Double FOC. Thinking most people will use it to create a more fitting army? We'll more likely see it being used to get more cheese in.

And this is why we can never have nice things.

2 FOCs can be used to help make a fluffy army. Of this, I do not doubt.

2 FOCs will be used to spam cheap uber effective HS/Elite slots. Of this, I guarantee.

Yeah, so why isn't everyone happy?

The fluffy bunnies can make their fluffy lists and the power gamers can make their power lists. Yay for everybody

The problem with doubling the FOC is that it is an unfair advantage for armies that can manipulate the scoring rules. In theory it wouldn't matter if you spammed the HS or Elite spot because that would nessesitate tradeoffs in scoring units which in turn would lead to tactical disadvatages, but many codexes have Speacial rules that alow them to shift scoring from the troop slot or move elites into troops. Imagine a kantor SM armie with minmum 6 scoring sterngaurd squads.

Jayden63 wrote:2 FOCs can be used to help make a fluffy army. Of this, I do not doubt.

2 FOCs will be used to spam cheap uber effective HS/Elite slots. Of this, I guarantee.

But, people who abuse the FOC to make a powerful army already do that. So, what's the difference?

All it does is change the dynamic, and as a player you need to be aware of it when you agree to a 2,000 point game.

As a Grey Knight player, I've always wanted to include an Inquisitor and his band of loyal (or coerced) henchmen in my army, but have been loath to leave either my Grandmaster or Librarian at home to do so. Now, at 2,000 points I can basically include an extra Inquisitor since at that points level, I'm probably running four troops choices anyway. I think it's great.

And so what if someone spams 30 long fangs (or whatever). You still get twice the FOC to throw back at them...

Kaldor wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:
And so what if someone spams 30 long fangs (or whatever). You still get twice the FOC to throw back at them...

But not all things cost equally. 30 missile launcher long fangs is 840 points, leaving you 1160 to spend on other stuff.

You tell me what else can dump out 30 BS4 missile launcher shots a turn for 840 points? The closest I can come to is 4 full units of Tank busta boys and that costs 900 points and the missiles have half range and don't have blast templates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When something is considered broken because of its cost, that problem only gets magnified when you can take it without limits.

The longfang issue is one that is there with or without the double force org. To say we can't do something because it makes the space wolves broken is foolish; they are already broken.

The fact of the matter is that 2x force org is in the rules when playing more than 1999 pts. If you don't want to deal with a second force org, play under that or go back to 5th.

The game has changed. Fortifications, allies, and double force orgs are all part of the game in the BGB so are fair game on the table top. Disallowing one or another because you don't like it means you are no longer playing 40k 6th ed.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:The longfang issue is one that is there with or without the double force org. To say we can't do something because it makes the space wolves broken is foolish; they are already broken.

Of course, cause if it's broken, there is no harm in breaking it even further.

The fact of the matter is that 2x force org is in the rules when playing more than 1999 pts. If you don't want to deal with a second force org, play under that or go back to 5th.

The game has changed. Fortifications, allies, and double force orgs are all part of the game in the BGB so are fair game on the table top. Disallowing one or another because you don't like it means you are no longer playing 40k 6th ed.

-cgmckenzie

Except doubling foc did nothing for the game except unbalance it further? Which is what tourney organizers are trying to deal with so people will actually show up to play at tourneys? This thread isnt about casual play...

I never said it was about casual play, I said that it is part of the game.

This isn't something that is open for interpretation, it is cut and dry in the rules:I take 2000+ points, I can take a second primary detachment. It isn't an optional thing or specific missions(see some of the later pages about writing scenarios) but an option for all 2000 pt lists.

If you want to start deleting rules, say no longfangs. That seems to be a giant source of contention between players, so why let them be fielded? Or how about we change up the deep strike mishap table? It's not fair that a unit of mine can be destroyed before it hits the table top. Premeasuring is stupid, why don't we delete that from tourney play, as well?

-cgmckenzie

EDIT-spelling

cgmckenzie wrote:I never said it was about casual play, I said that it is part of the game.

This isn't something that is open for interpretation, it is cut and dry in the rules:I take 2000+ points, I can take a second primary detachment. It isn't an optional thing or specific missions(see some of the later pages about writing scenarios) but an option for all 2000 pt lists.

If you want to start deleting rules, say no longfangs. That seems to be a giant source of contention between players, so why let them be fielded? Or how about we change up the deep strike mishap table? It's not fair that a unit of mine can be destroyed before it hits the table top. Premeasuring is stupid, why don't we delete that from tourney play, as well?

-cgmckenzie

EDIT-spelling

Because it's not just about long fangs. It's about balance. It's not about random dice rolls on a mishap. And as far as 'interpretation', tourneys have always done this, like it or not.

Be it through 'comp' scores or 'sportsmanship' scores, wierd missions or scoring, tourneys HAVE always done this. Unfortunately, in this case, gw is forcing their hands...

Jayden63 wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:
And so what if someone spams 30 long fangs (or whatever). You still get twice the FOC to throw back at them...

But not all things cost equally. 30 missile launcher long fangs is 840 points, leaving you 1160 to spend on other stuff.

No, you don't have 1160 to spend on other stuff.

You have to first buy 2 HQs and 4 Grey Hunter squads.

Thats going to easily eat up half of that 1160. So you really only have about ~500 to spend on other stuff, if you don't increase GH squad size or get upgrades for your 2 HQs and GHs.


A 30 long fang list will pretty much be 30 long fangs. Not scary. Its hidiously unbalanced from a TAC perspective.

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, so why isn't everyone happy?

The fluffy bunnies can make their fluffy lists and the power gamers can make their power lists. Yay for everybody

This would definitely work if the former didn't have to deal with the latter over the table at their FLGS.

Skriker

Grey Templar wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:
And so what if someone spams 30 long fangs (or whatever). You still get twice the FOC to throw back at them...

But not all things cost equally. 30 missile launcher long fangs is 840 points, leaving you 1160 to spend on other stuff.

No, you don't have 1160 to spend on other stuff.

You have to first buy 2 HQs and 4 Grey Hunter squads.

Thats going to easily eat up half of that 1160. So you really only have about ~500 to spend on other stuff, if you don't increase GH squad size or get upgrades for your 2 HQs and GHs.


A 30 long fang list will pretty much be 30 long fangs. Not scary. Its hidiously unbalanced from a TAC perspective.

No. A 30 lf list will wind up running 38 mls, with 6 scoring units (only 2 of which are gh) and a ton of combi plas, but who is counting? And it's 2 hqs you would have probably taken anways...

There is nothing 'wasted'.

What are the other 4 scoring units praytell?

Show me this 2k list with 30 LFs, 2 minsized GH squads, and 4 mysterious troops. You arn't running Logan and taking Wolf Guard as troops are you?

Grey Templar wrote:What are the other 4 scoring units praytell?

Show me this 2k list with 30 LFs, 2 minsized GH squads, and 4 mysterious troops. You arn't running Logan and taking Wolf Guard as troops are you?

Of course I am running logan. Reroll to hit and glances amd pem? Yes, please.

WG as scoring and cheap combi plas? Even more.

I might drop 4 mls if I think that aegis def lines and another rp would be good.