Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Talking to the guy at my local store for sales figures for his store?

Cant really cite it more than that....

So...if you like the new FOC "system", why don't you play your games with it and let us TOs come up with a competitive version of it?

The simple fact is that the Spam that a completely unregulated FOC brings drives off many players and exacerbates the codex tier differences.

TOs are put in the difficult position to try and create a fun, fair and competitive event. That is a general assumption that is widely agreed upon. Some tournaments are designed for no mercy spam feasts and attract a certain demographic. Varied and differing events are great for the hobby, but the predominate event format needs to be carefully considered and designed to be the best for the hobby as a whole. Unrestricted FOC is highly unlikely to be the answer, even 6th had to eliminate Double FOC.

Because this is basically TOs saying 3rd Edition came out, lets stick to 2nd edition Army lists creation.

And yes this did happen.

Hollismason wrote:
Because this is basically TOs saying 3rd Edition came out, lets stick to 2nd edition Army lists creation.

And yes this did happen.

But people who seem to agree with you seem to be in the Minority. TOs and players alike seem to be strongly in favor of limited FOC. Majority rules.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority it's time to pause and reflect. - Some guy who died.

Hollismason wrote:
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority it's time to pause and reflect. - Some guy who died.

...in a discussion about miniature wargames.

Besides, the main reason people are pushing back against unbound and the infini-FoC is that they're not so much changes, but the absence of a rule. Instead of finding an interesting way to refine or tweak the FoC, they threw it out and are selling people the idea of a rule that let's do whatever you want.

And there are people who eat this up. Do you seriously need a rule to let you bring anything you want?

Apparently you do since so many people are yelling to put rules back in that say you can't.

 Zagman wrote:
The simple fact is that the Spam that a completely unregulated FOC brings drives off many players and exacerbates the codex tier differences.

TOs are put in the difficult position to try and create a fun, fair and competitive event. That is a general assumption that is widely agreed upon. Some tournaments are designed for no mercy spam feasts and attract a certain demographic. Varied and differing events are great for the hobby, but the predominate event format needs to be carefully considered and designed to be the best for the hobby as a whole. Unrestricted FOC is highly unlikely to be the answer, even 6th had to eliminate Double FOC.

Very much this. The current FOC is very problematic for balance games for a tournament. (or pick up games) It creates a mess that some players don't find at all appealing.

Orktavius wrote:
Apparently you do since so many people are yelling to put rules back in that say you can't.

Were you responding to me?

If so, you haven't exactly made a point against what I said.

The game should have a structure; throwing it out entirely is very poor game design. In fact, I'd argue it isn't game design at all.

 Blacksails wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Apparently you do since so many people are yelling to put rules back in that say you can't.

Were you responding to me?

If so, you haven't exactly made a point against what I said.

The game should have a structure; throwing it out entirely is very poor game design. In fact, I'd argue it isn't game design at all.

Actually there is an entire category of game, its called sandbox. So while the game may not be what YOU want, you how YOU define a game. It is still game design.

 Leth wrote:


Actually there is an entire category of game, its called sandbox. So while the game may not be what YOU want, you how YOU define a game. It is still game design.

...which would be a valid point if 40k were a sandbox game.

Instead, 40k is still a player vs.player game with clear definitions and objectives to determine the winner.

Codifying a rule stating 'bring whatever you want' isn't so much a rule as it is the opposite of one. Its the game design equivalent of Calvin Ball.

Its not so much how I may define a game, but simply stating that given the current issues of 40k (from 6th) that tossing the FoC was an absolutely terrible game design decision. Some people may like it, but that doesn't excuse the absolute laziness of Unbound.

You could always take whatever you wanted. Again, did you seriously need a 'rule' to let you do so?

 Blacksails wrote:


You could always take whatever you wanted. Again, did you seriously need a 'rule' to let you do so?

How many people played with allies as standard before 6th? Yes for most people it requires the rules to allow it.a

Without rules you can do whatever. Rules just restrict that. Unbound is still not a lack of rules, just a loosening of rules, allowing you to make the further specifications you want instead of GW doing it for you. That is what TO's do, that is what local clubs do. I find in most gaming it is much easier to put further restrictions on the rules than to add to them. To add requires people to learn something new, to restrict only requires that you dont use something that you already know.

If I am worried about pick up games, try and find a means to schedule things. Now if that doesnt work for you, then maybe the hobby is not for you. It makes me sad to think so but I would rather people play something they enjoy instead of sitting around in a gakky marriage refusing to divorce.

You can sit there, complain all day long but its not going to solve the problem. I prefer to find solutions and focus on the positive since it does nothing for me focusing on the negative. I still recognize the negative but find ways to mitigate it.

I will turn up to the next tourny with anything I want, no point limit like all the other newbs, forging a narrative it's in the rulebook why not eh.

Haha could you imagine, but seriously, no, unbound is a bag of worms as evidenced by the 14 man farseer council and eldrad deamon spam I played in my 1st game of 7th, still won but it amply demonstrated the kind of idiocy I could expect from unbound and was swiftly disallowed at our club.

allies weren't permitted in tournies when 6th came out. Unbound isn't permitted in tournies when 7th came out. Eventually you will see it allowed. There is bound to be a buffer zone while people experiment in casual games. Once people are more familiar with it, I suspect we'll see them allowed. I don't know about elsewhere, but most of the tournies around here have a few points awarded for sportsmanship, or fluffiness, or w/e they want to call it. (basically if you cheese the system too hard you're going to get dinged). Your eldar chaos army isn't going to get a very high rating in that field.

Objective secured transports has me believing most armies are going to get troop heavy, with transports. Something GW has been trying to get us to do for a very long time.

If I am worried about pick up games, try and find a means to schedule things. Now if that doesnt work for you, then maybe the hobby is not for you. It makes me sad to think so but I would rather people play something they enjoy instead of sitting around in a gakky marriage refusing to divorce.

Only If I were to divorce a guy , I would get an alimony and flat or money for it . If I were to quit playing I would not only spend less time with people I know , including my boyfriend, but also got less then 50% of what I paid for the models to get in to the game.

emmagine wrote:
allies weren't permitted in tournies when 6th came out. Unbound isn't permitted in tournies when 7th came out. Eventually you will see it allowed. There is bound to be a buffer zone while people experiment in casual games. Once people are more familiar with it, I suspect we'll see them allowed. I don't know about elsewhere, but most of the tournies around here have a few points awarded for sportsmanship, or fluffiness, or w/e they want to call it. (basically if you cheese the system too hard you're going to get dinged). Your eldar chaos army isn't going to get a very high rating in that field.

Objective secured transports has me believing most armies are going to get troop heavy, with transports. Something GW has been trying to get us to do for a very long time.

Nice to see that people can see that GW is attempting a blatant money grab but still back it's idiotic design team filled with the least pleasant excuses for game designers to ever make it big.

Hollismason wrote:
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority it's time to pause and reflect. - Some guy who died.

Have you actively taken part in competitive tournaments on a larger scale and / or are a TO or were one in the past?

emmagine wrote:
allies weren't permitted in tournies when 6th came out. Unbound isn't permitted in tournies when 7th came out. Eventually you will see it allowed. There is bound to be a buffer zone while people experiment in casual games. Once people are more familiar with it, I suspect we'll see them allowed. I don't know about elsewhere, but most of the tournies around here have a few points awarded for sportsmanship, or fluffiness, or w/e they want to call it. (basically if you cheese the system too hard you're going to get dinged). Your eldar chaos army isn't going to get a very high rating in that field.

Objective secured transports has me believing most armies are going to get troop heavy, with transports. Something GW has been trying to get us to do for a very long time.

First of all, I have never seen or heard of a single tournament that did not allow allies at the start of 6th.

And, secondly, you really don't see a problem of a tournament that allows players to bring whatever they want, but then relies on a system of guilt-tripping and shaming players who bring stuff that isn't cool?

I think the main problem with less restrictions is that power lists tend to lead to more rock paper scissors match ups with less emphasis on actual strategy. Just my 2 cents...

 Leth wrote:

How many people played with allies as standard before 6th? Yes for most people it requires the rules to allow it.a

Allies are a very different ballgame than Unbound. Allies are a good idea, but poor execution in 6th. Admittedly, 7th improved allies by limiting the BB incest fest, and if the game were one FoC + one allied detachment, I'd be pretty happy.

Its likely what I'll end up playing with friends.

Without rules you can do whatever. Rules just restrict that. Unbound is still not a lack of rules, just a loosening of rules, allowing you to make the further specifications you want instead of GW doing it for you. That is what TO's do, that is what local clubs do. I find in most gaming it is much easier to put further restrictions on the rules than to add to them. To add requires people to learn something new, to restrict only requires that you dont use something that you already know.

I'd argue that Unbound is in fact a complete absence of rules for the army building portion of the game. The only restrictions are that you have to follow the individual unit requirement, which is hardly a restriction.

What I expect from a company that produces rules for a wargame is to produce a set of rules within which I can play a game. I want restrictions, and by the very nature of playing a wargame, so do you. Otherwise, you'd be playing Calvin Ball. Rules are restrictions and I expect to pay money for a finished product I don't have to perform a series of rituals at a game store to make it workable.

If I am worried about pick up games, try and find a means to schedule things. Now if that doesnt work for you, then maybe the hobby is not for you. It makes me sad to think so but I would rather people play something they enjoy instead of sitting around in a gakky marriage refusing to divorce.

First of all, the hobby is for me, as there's more to miniature wargaming than GW. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you using it sarcastically, which should be written as the HHHobby.

The new rules do make pickup games more difficult. That is an objectively bad thing. I shouldn't have to worry about the power level of my list, or the power level of my opponent's list, or what gimmicks are being abused, or what kind of an army construction we've used.

If it makes you feel a little happier about me, I'm going to find a way to improve the game. I will find games enjoyable with my friends.

But I'm not in this thread to discuss how I can make the game workable. I'm pointing out that we shouldn't be praising GW for things like Unbound or infini-FoC. I'm providing a counter argument to the people who buy into the 'Forge the Narrative' nonsense. I'm explaining that a person can dislike aspects of the game and want a better product within reason, but still find a way to enjoy the game among friends, despite the flaws.

None of this is black and white.

You can sit there, complain all day long but its not going to solve the problem. I prefer to find solutions and focus on the positive since it does nothing for me focusing on the negative. I still recognize the negative but find ways to mitigate it.

I'm not complaining all day. I know how to solve the problem. I explained myself above, but I'm not going to blindly praise GW for giving us a complete absence of army construction rules.

I have 600+ posts in the proposed rules forum. I've written a novel by now on how to balance other peoples' creations. I like fixing things and creating new stuff, but I prefer it infinitely more when the framework I'm provided with is of a superior quality.

I may seem overly negative to you, but I call it like I see it. I praise things that deserve it, but not before.

I solved the problem by selling my space marine army and getting two Infinity forces and half my warmachine army. Just played a pickup game yesterday and had more fun than I've had in a long time.

That's my Hoby now.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Leth wrote:

How many people played with allies as standard before 6th? Yes for most people it requires the rules to allow it.a

Allies are a very different ballgame than Unbound. Allies are a good idea, but poor execution in 6th. Admittedly, 7th improved allies by limiting the BB incest fest, and if the game were one FoC + one allied detachment, I'd be pretty happy.

Its likely what I'll end up playing with friends.

Without rules you can do whatever. Rules just restrict that. Unbound is still not a lack of rules, just a loosening of rules, allowing you to make the further specifications you want instead of GW doing it for you. That is what TO's do, that is what local clubs do. I find in most gaming it is much easier to put further restrictions on the rules than to add to them. To add requires people to learn something new, to restrict only requires that you dont use something that you already know.

I'd argue that Unbound is in fact a complete absence of rules for the army building portion of the game. The only restrictions are that you have to follow the individual unit requirement, which is hardly a restriction.

What I expect from a company that produces rules for a wargame is to produce a set of rules within which I can play a game. I want restrictions, and by the very nature of playing a wargame, so do you. Otherwise, you'd be playing Calvin Ball. Rules are restrictions and I expect to pay money for a finished product I don't have to perform a series of rituals at a game store to make it workable.

If I am worried about pick up games, try and find a means to schedule things. Now if that doesnt work for you, then maybe the hobby is not for you. It makes me sad to think so but I would rather people play something they enjoy instead of sitting around in a gakky marriage refusing to divorce.

First of all, the hobby is for me, as there's more to miniature wargaming than GW. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you using it sarcastically, which should be written as the HHHobby.

The new rules do make pickup games more difficult. That is an objectively bad thing. I shouldn't have to worry about the power level of my list, or the power level of my opponent's list, or what gimmicks are being abused, or what kind of an army construction we've used.

If it makes you feel a little happier about me, I'm going to find a way to improve the game. I will find games enjoyable with my friends.

But I'm not in this thread to discuss how I can make the game workable. I'm pointing out that we shouldn't be praising GW for things like Unbound or infini-FoC. I'm providing a counter argument to the people who buy into the 'Forge the Narrative' nonsense. I'm explaining that a person can dislike aspects of the game and want a better product within reason, but still find a way to enjoy the game among friends, despite the flaws.

None of this is black and white.

You can sit there, complain all day long but its not going to solve the problem. I prefer to find solutions and focus on the positive since it does nothing for me focusing on the negative. I still recognize the negative but find ways to mitigate it.

I'm not complaining all day. I know how to solve the problem. I explained myself above, but I'm not going to blindly praise GW for giving us a complete absence of army construction rules.

I have 600+ posts in the proposed rules forum. I've written a novel by now on how to balance other peoples' creations. I like fixing things and creating new stuff, but I prefer it infinitely more when the framework I'm provided with is of a superior quality.

I may seem overly negative to you, but I call it like I see it. I praise things that deserve it, but not before.

I focus on recognizing things for what they are. Notice how I never blindly praised GW, I simply said I am happy with what has come out and am having more fun with this edition than I did with 6th.

I also recognize what unbound is, it is an option for people who want to build these armies and have a structure within the rules to do so. It was not implemented FOR the people who were going to abuse it, whatever system you invest in there will be people who abuse it. The question is do you let the abusers dictate your actions or not.

I like options within reason. As I said just providing the minis and saying go have fun would be calvinball. Just because there are not the same level of restrictions as YOU would like does not mean that it is a negative overall. Part of what makes this hobby unique is that you get a lot more options than the other games which is what has a lot of draw for me. I would rather people have the ability to customize their experience simply instead of having to come up with rules on their own to try and get what they want.

But I recognize that this is simply a difference of opinion and a difference of goals issue and so I will give you the last word before moving on to something else

It isn't a matter of guilt tripping. It's quite reasonable. If you power game and abuse the rules without any regard for the fluff, you aren't being very sportsman like. Guilt tripping would be making them feel bad. Around here they straight up punish you by dinging you competitive points. No, I have no problem with that at all. It doesn't take long before the abusers learn it will stop them from ever winning a tournie if they come with a ridiculous list. Around here it's been very effective.


Also both here and where I used to live in cali both prohibited allies when 6th hit. Everyone I know who lives elsewhere and plays says they did the same thing.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I solved the problem by selling my space marine army and getting two Infinity forces and half my warmachine army. Just played a pickup game yesterday and had more fun than I've had in a long time.

That's my Hoby now.

Oh wow, I think I've seen you write that in every single 7th ed related thread on dakka..

And I agree with OP that new FOC rules should be embraced by players. In my opinion players should try them, test them and see how it works, how it turns out in the long run and how to counter the hardest cheese. Turning away from it the moment it hit the shelves is really stupid in my opinion and reeks of biased, unreasonable hating fueled by mass hysteria that's so present all over Dakka as people repeat what the loudest barking naysayers gibber in their lunatic ravings. While I agree with most that GW has made some really bad decisions, both marketing and design and that Codexes are poorly balanced both internally and externally I've noticed that players play a big role in the bad image of 40k among wargaming. The community is way too big and as in every big group the loudest barking dogs are heard the most by everyone else, including the 'normal' players, which then get influenced by their extremely negative attitude and they pick up the toxic behaviour, slowly getting consumed by the hysteria. And that's mostly because with so many players you'll never make EVERYONE happy, ergo - the bigger the community the more unhappy people will exist and they'll be preaching doom and gloom all over the forums. How many times already I have seen a positive thread by a person that actually enjoys the game get drowned in "lol you stoopid, dis gaem sux" and people feeling the profound urge to prove him that he isn't nor that he actually should enjoy the game.. I don't know, dozens. In past month.

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm attacking you about your transition thing, Historian, but I really think that barring onto another game's forum and preach about how cool your new, other game seems wrong to me. Especially now that some people(not you) seem to be under impression that saying that they moved onto other systems is something one should feel cool and brag about, which is ridiculous.


As for TOs.. well, they can wait a moment, see what works, see what doesn't and I think that competitive points penalty for extremely unfluffy lists is a good idea as I thought it should've been in place in 6th anyway. Sure, more relaxed rules are a lazy thing for the designer and TOs are going to have even more work to do to make stuff... yeah, competitive in their own idea of it. With 7th 40k is more like a toolbox for various types of players, and those ultra-competitive think that the system should be only tailored for them, while GW gave us a lot of options and opportunities to build armies we couldn't build before. Brand me a blind fanboy, I couldn't care less, but I think that for those that aren't extremely competitive tournament mongers 7th is the best edition ever once some of the players turn off their hipster nostalgia filter and if they're unhappy(unlike those that actually enjoy the system), they can always houserule it as it only takes a few minutes for a group to find out what would be their fix for it to enjoy the game to it's fullest.

Hollismason wrote:
Because this is basically TOs saying 3rd Edition came out, lets stick to 2nd edition Army lists creation.

And yes this did happen.

Just because something is new and different doesn't mean it is necessarily good.

We keep being told that GW themselves never regarded the rules as fit for tournament purposes (ignoring the 25+ years history of GW running tournaments with them, of course) but if we accept that is true, why should Tournament players accept the 7th edition is an improvement on 5th.