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.

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but...

In unbalanced mutliplayer games, where one army of 2000pts plays against two armies of 1000pts, is there a general consenus that the two smaller armies should restrict their FOC so the opposing player does not have to deal with say 4 HQ & 6 Heavy Support?

Any views would be appreciated.

In our group when playing teams games, I and a lot of the others feel that one FoC per army is needed. Otherwise more than omg bbq 4 hq, is that someone spends all their points on a unit like Long fangs of a Tyrant with guard. And this actually unbalances the game in a far more drastic fashion than, two list which still adher to the restrictions of the FoC and having half the point to play with toys.

It's really down to how you choose to play it, since the normal rules don't cover 2vs1 games, other than for Apocalypse... which doesn't use the FoC anyway.

But yes, either restricting the 2 players, or allowing the solo player to use two FoCs would be fair.

In such games our concern is more that the guys with the smaller armies have less options to start with. They both have to "waste" points on non-scoring HQ units, and after two compulsory troops many armies will have problems if they want anything extra. The commander of the single 2K block has a much easier time making his army work.

There are no official team rules outside Apoc as insaniak mentioned. However my FLGS does it 2 ways.

One:
Both team mates split a FoC. Mandatory 1 HQ & 2 troops can come from any army.

Two:
They each pick one of these & may not pick the same (1 HQ and 1 Troops mandatory from each):
1 HQ
3 Troops
2 Elite
1 Fast
1 Heavy

1 HQ
3 Troops
1 Elite
2 Fast
1 Heavy

1 HQ
3 Troops
1 Elite
1 Fast
2 Heavy


For a 2v1 I suggest using the first option. The second is more for 2v2.

I think it should be one FOC per side.

I once played a 5000 BT game versus a 3-way alliance between CSM, Orks, and more CSM. TO make up the points, I had to feild what i had, meaning that after I fielded all my heavy hitters, I had to add a bunch of tactical marines to make up the points.

The opposite side each used a seperate FOC, and I ended up facing 6 defilers, 9 killa kans and a deff dread. Suffice to say I got my ass kicked!

At 5k points you should probably be using 2 FoC's each anyway.

In unbalanced games, especially at only 2k points, having 1 FoC per side is fair, and let the side with 2 players discuss how they plan to bring the minimum and split the maximums. Even in 2v2, if the combined total of points on each side is under 2k I'd say only one FoC each team, just so you don't have to have such a limited option, especially from the more expensive codices like Eldar.

dirtypete wrote:In unbalanced mutliplayer games, where one army of 2000pts plays against two armies of 1000pts, is there a general consenus that the two smaller armies should restrict their FOC so the opposing player does not have to deal with say 4 HQ & 6 Heavy Support?

As long as both sides have the same number of FOCs, it generally works okay. There is still a potential advantage to the two-players as they can pull off some unit combos not possible with a single codex. That said, unless they're well practised at team games they'll generally get in each others way enough to mitigate that advantage.

We generally play 3v2 @ 1500 each person.

The way we do this is the short team brings a 3rd 1500 army

so that there are 3 1500 point armies on each side of the table.

It works fairly well.

I would say that for 2v1, the 2 share a FOC. So 1 HQ each max etc.

DeathReaper wrote:We generally play 3v2 @ 1500 each person.

The way we do this is the short team brings a 3rd 1500 army

so that there are 3 1500 point armies on each side of the table.

It works fairly well.

Which codexs do you guys tend to mix it up with?

I play Vanilla marines/Blood Angels/ Sometimes Chaos

we have a Tyranid player

We have a Chaos/Vanilla marine player (depending on his mood)

We have a Sisters of battle player

and one guy that plays whatever extra army we have made, since he just started the hobby and is not sure if he likes it yet.

He better
The SoB is a nice element to have, I've only had two chances to see them in action, once I was playing

I played one game of 2 x 1000 vs. 1 x 2000 and I was the 2000. I just used 2 FO since they were using 2 FO. It made more sense. For some armies this can be better or worse than for others, for instance I don't mind having more HQ in my Eldar at all. Autarch for reserves, Farseer for support powers, and Avatar for being a badass. It was nice for once not having to choose 2 out of 3.

If I was playing something with monstrously expensive HQ, or kind-of-meh HQ ("oh no! a Chaplain!") I wouldn't want a required second HQ anyway since my troops would be where it's at, but it only makes sense that both sides of the table get the same rules. Either they share an army and divy it up between them, or you play 2 armys.

Thanks for the opinions guys, been a great help!