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.

First off I've been playing 40k on and off for about 22 years. With each new iteration inevitably people say I like the old stuff better lets hammer this square peg into this round hole. It happened immediately after 2nd edition ended and 3rd started, people who like O_o at the ally system and FOC. They didn't want to use it. They wanted to keep the old way of percentages and etc..

The reason you should embrace the new changes to the FOC is because we have had the same FOC for over a DECADE now. A decade we've had the same FOC. Sure there's been a few changes with "detachments" and "formations" but it's pretty much always been " 1HQ 2 Troops" format.

We finally have a new "format" and you should embrace that. It's less restrictive yet still fair in a way that you don't realize as everyone can use this format. It boosts a lot of armies potential.

I know new things are scary, just like when 3rd happened and everyone gak their pants over Marines hitting everything on a 3+. The nature of the game is to not be static.

As players we've been given a great sandbox. A FOC that allows us to build the armies we want to build. It still has restrictions but we have new options and new tools to build our armies with. It's why when people say " We should limit FOCs" I'm like why? You've been playing the same FOC for years, this is why we just continually see the same lists over and over again, people maximizing and minimizing lists in order to gain importance in one specific area to dominate.

Now that's over, troops matter! Alot alot alot. If you are not taking troops then you are going to be left in the wind when during the game you can't remove these Objective secured guys from an objective.

I dunno it just kind of agravates me when people go " Well I'm not playing that, how dare they change this". The New FOC is a good change. It's been stagnant for over a decade. Let's start trying to explore the possibilities instead of just saying " No".

NO
In tournaments the more chances some one has to min max the more it will happen. For fun play with your buds sure go nuts, play as you wish and if your to much of a dick you will be left with a bunch of models and no one to play with.
tournaments need a set of restritions to keep it from getting just stupid. In a environment were players are trying to win at all costs restrictions must be there or you will see nothing but that power model in armies.
Change can be a great thing and it can be a bad thing, it all counts on the format and the change that occurs.

I don't agree because no one has seen how Objective Secured rules have played out in a tournament setting so it's incongruous to say " This will happen".

Orkhead wrote:
NO
In tournaments the more chances some one has to min max the more it will happen. For fun play with your buds sure go nuts, play as you wish and if your to much of a dick you will be left with a bunch of models and no one to play with.
tournaments need a set of restritions to keep it from getting just stupid. In a environment were players are trying to win at all costs restrictions must be there or you will see nothing but that power model in armies.
Change can be a great thing and it can be a bad thing, it all counts on the format and the change that occurs.

i dont really agree here, sure one army can go balls out and do silly crazy things, then guess what happens next tourney people will come with hard counter lists, rinse repeat until someone realises that a more balanced list is a better idea because they dont know all the potential combinations of what could be thrown at them.

so sure for the first few power gamers can run rampant until one of them gets their nose bloodied, looses terribly and has to change the list. id play it straight from the book and let the crazed power gamers burn each other down as i dont think there is a SINGLE UNBEATABLE list in the game. and opening the floodgates of take lots of crazy isnt too bad an idea as more and more hard counters to lists will come out till it becomes obv that doing things just one way with your list is not the best plan

Anyone with army builder/battle scribe can see how quickly the CAD can get pretty crazy.

Unfortunatelly for tournaments there really needs to be some limitations in place. Otherwise it is pretty easy to go nuts while still remaining battle forged.

It is basically unbound with a slight HQ and troop tax which might as well not exist. It really needs to be limited for the sake of tournament play.

but take those limitations away and let natural selection take place, those stupid mono build type lists will appear and dissapear just as fast. eventually it will be people running TAC type lists with only 1 person who goes full slow and gets munched.

an eg would be.
tourney 1. super list A wins
tourney 2. more people bring super list A, but others bring hard counter to A.
tourney 3, super list A is known as beatable and very few bring it looking to list B
tourney 4. Super list B comes along again with people bringing counters to the latest and greatest. so it gets a hiding and known as beatable, people move from list B to a new list C.

and so forth. it stops it suddenly being TAUDAR top event after event all over again. as the meta needs to constantly evolve to keep pace. eventually people will come to the notion that a TAC build will work better because of all the options out there and ballance would come about slowly.

now when there is limits put in place you can optimise even better for the super lists. under 1 FOC or even 2 you KNOW what you can come up with better, but if you think mmm thre might be someone running X FOC you will keep your options open better.

So.. lets find out who can spam the best in just one foc instead of multiples?

Basically. It'd certainly give armies that greatly benefitted from the new FOCs a fighting chance.

Yes, your going to see stuff like 20 Warlocks on Jetbikes 4 Farseers and then more jetbikes. How effective it would be without out other items though is questionable.

It's a small army , taking very few models like that is basically saying, I really hope I don't go up against anything that has Alpha Strike or Barrage on the first turn.

The new FOC is a piking' terrible idea, and I think Tournaments should stay distant from it. But that's my two cents.

Why was the old FOC around for years? Because it was good!

Tempting though it would be to drop a dozen biomancied up GUO all over some poor unsuspecting sap's position, i'm not a fan of Unbound.

I like a bit more structure, especially when it's hard enough to limit the gakfest lists as it is, without giving them free reign..

I agree with the OP.

I hate to say it, but frankly, a good half of 40k players are...
well...really, really whiny, ragequitters...

Don't get me wrong though, the other half are just, awesome blokes, who are a great pleasure to win AND lose against.

Some armies really don't care if they're limited to 1 or 2 FOCs, like deathwing and such, other armies, like orks, whose units are generally cheaper, individually, really suffer from the limitation.

Guard don't care. I can field some 234 bodies/troop slot, or 3 front armour 14 tanks in 1 heavy slot. Other armies cannot.

This, I feel, will create a meta with more variety in lists, as more options are available. More options does indeed leave more munchkin potential, but as we all know, 40k lists that spam X unit always die to a list of all Y units.

This really could create a meta of all-comers lists, since you never know what you might be facing. Mainly because you could be facing anything

Its not for those armies where the problem is, its for the armies that are SUPER efficient in any given slot.

35 points per objective secured unit in farsight take 6 and then a fire warrior HQ guy for 250 points or so, times that by 4, you have 24 individual battle suits that need to be targetted individually to be killed, each one takes two wounds can GTG in cover, whatever. That still leaves 850 points.

OR Eldar, Farseer on bike for around 150 or so, 6 3 man bike units for 300. So for less than 500 you get 6 objective secured bike squads and a farseer. Now lets take 3-4 of those. We now have 24 eldar jetbike units and 4 farseers. Once again the over saturation issue comes up. To be even more annoying why dont we have those farseers summon up some daemons.

And that is just the mild versions of the problems with the multiple charts. Dont even get me started on 4 heralds per combined arms detachment.

So what if someone takes one of these types of builds? Fragile and likely to give up First Blood and has diminished firepower and assault capability. Played against the Demon summoning and,frankly, they kind of need it. I've played against it and without summoning it really would have gotten lopsided.

All I have seen with all the comp people are clamoring for is the continuation of 6th edition which was essentially deathstar 40K.

There were always complaints about rules changes in each new edition but the scale of complaining is far worse in 6th and 7th because the nature of the rules changes was far more sweeping.

Allies pretty much wrecked the concept of the FOC.

 Sarigar wrote:
So what if someone takes one of these types of builds? Fragile and likely to give up First Blood and has diminished firepower and assault capability. Played against the Demon summoning and,frankly, they kind of need it. I've played against it and without summoning it really would have gotten lopsided.

All I have seen with all the comp people are clamoring for is the continuation of 6th edition which was essentially deathstar 40K.

I agree, however for TOs it is not always a matter of balance, it is a matter of people having fun and continuing to come to their events.

I agree with the op. Especially that many good/op builds don't need more than 1 FOC anyway. Seercouncil (only 1 Baron), Daemons can live with 1 FOC, since Tau could ally with itself before so it already could spam Riptides/other things as much as they wanted.

Changes like that are the best things that can happen to any meta. People think of new combos. You now that you aren't gonna face all the time same lists.
Anyone who played any online game (LoL for example) should know that those changes are what keep many players in game. In some cases certain armies will even live a second life.

About this spamming of cheap troop choices: So what? You'll just be slaughtered by someone who actually took some units that can kill anything, I strongly recommend playing a little bit before giving up on it.

I am not giving up on it, I just recognize the situation most of the TO's are in. People are afraid of change and with the amount they have invested, at least for these first few months then they have to play it safe. Honestly if the new edition had hit a few months ago with time before the GT tournament season we would probably not be seeing this type of reaction. But TOs need to get rules out now and they probably are going with the ones that require people to make the fewest changes(for building and modeling purposes, etc)

While I would like it a bit more open(so I can bring in mah inquisition) I dont mind it being slightly limited for now.

Yet they are making the decision without ever seeing the results. They're trying to basically divine the future.

Because we haven't seen armies in tournament formats before like this.

Sure you've had Double FOC tournaments and I've never seen a report on here that they were horribly broken.

But a Combined army is not exactly a "double FOC".

A sandbox is only fun if the army choices are actually balanced without one person actually having to gimp themselves and players actually get to field any given unit without shooting themselves in the foot competitively. And for all the "forging the narrative" bull Jervis flaps his arms about I've never seen an edition where the fluff has been defiled harder in the game mechanics than 7th.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Because facing double force organization was so well received last edition.

If the codices were actually balanced, your opinion would be valid on the matter. However, while "haves" and "have nots" still exist, removing essentially all restrictions makes the game worse.

Every other miniatures game sticks to some form of restriction basis through either points, rarity, or both. Many things GW should be doing is moving back to the 0-# style format for certain armies and units, or dictating when you can take models.

How much harder would it be to run a Jetseer Council if you had to have a guardian unit per each warlock, regardless if you attached it or not? Want 10 guardians? Better bring double force organization, and 10 units of jet bikers (510 pts!). That's quite a tax on an already 700 point deathstar.

More restrictions makes for a better game. And nothing stops you and your friends from throwing the baby out with bathwater and going "hog wild".

I'd like to know how removing restrictions, thus very quickly moving people towards the few best monobuilds, at all improves the game besides encouraging people to ignore 95% of the units in the game so they can just field the stuff that lets them win.

And I'll bet you that many codexes won't have any units to contribute to that 5% of all the actually worthwhile units in a totally unbound meta.

You know, because games where every army is a grotesque mish mash of Eldar, Tzeentch Daemons, Be'Lakor, select bits of the Imperial Codexes, and some Night Scythes and Annihilation barges here and there is exactly what 40k is all about.

Guess I better count all my Tyranids as Daemons, Imperials, Space Elves, and Necrons now if i want to compete in that ghastly farce of a "game."

 Fos Kenos wrote:
I agree with the OP.

I hate to say it, but frankly, a good half of 40k players are...
well...really, really whiny, ragequitters...

Don't get me wrong though, the other half are just, awesome blokes, who are a great pleasure to win AND lose against.

Some armies really don't care if they're limited to 1 or 2 FOCs, like deathwing and such, other armies, like orks, whose units are generally cheaper, individually, really suffer from the limitation.

Guard don't care. I can field some 234 bodies/troop slot, or 3 front armour 14 tanks in 1 heavy slot. Other armies cannot.

This, I feel, will create a meta with more variety in lists, as more options are available. More options does indeed leave more munchkin potential, but as we all know, 40k lists that spam X unit always die to a list of all Y units.

This really could create a meta of all-comers lists, since you never know what you might be facing. Mainly because you could be facing anything

At least you took the time to understand their arguments and what they're really trying to say.

Oh...wait. You didn't. You just kind of lumped everyone that has a complaint about the game into one inaccurate generalization. Good on you. That'll help the conversation.

 MWHistorian wrote:

At least you took the time to understand their arguments and what they're really trying to say.

Oh...wait. You didn't. You just kind of lumped everyone that has a complaint about the game into one inaccurate generalization. Good on you. That'll help the conversation.

Nah, the other half are people incapable of really comprehending anything complex and are just mindless fluff bunnies who couldn't use tactics or strategy to fight against the wet paper sack god of chaos if they tried. That's why the leap down the throats of anyone who even hints at being competitive because they are incapable of playing at that level and are having some sort of PTSD knee-jerk reaction of seeing their fully built (but crappily painted, lets be honest) 3rd company getting absolutely murdered. They'd rather have everyone else leave so that they can pet their precious captain and not sob themselves to sleep in their Taldeer body pillows.

Unbound isn't game design. Its the opposite of game design.

The new FoC/CAD, whatever its called now is equally poorly thought out.

There was nothing wrong with the FoC. The new system only exacerbates the balance issues inherent in the game, and make an already clunky game even clunkier before you start dice rolling.

You shouldn't need a rule to be able to take anything you want. Its laughably awful game design.

*Edit* Always nice to see a poster in these threads generalize people as whiny rage-quitters. So refreshing and mature.

*More editing* I accidentally words.

 TheKbob wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

At least you took the time to understand their arguments and what they're really trying to say.

Oh...wait. You didn't. You just kind of lumped everyone that has a complaint about the game into one inaccurate generalization. Good on you. That'll help the conversation.

Nah, the other half are people incapable of really comprehending anything complex and are just mindless fluff bunnies who couldn't use tactics or strategy to fight against the wet paper sack god of chaos if they tried. That's why the leap down the throats of anyone who even hints at being competitive because they are incapable of playing at that level and are having some sort of PTSD knee-jerk reaction of seeing their fully built (but crappily painted, lets be honest) 3rd company getting absolutely murdered. They'd rather have everyone else leave so that they can pet their precious captain and not sob themselves to sleep in their Taldeer body pillows.

Spoiler:

/SARCASM ...but aren't generalizations fun?

How long before the fluff gets retconned so you can run a skyblight swarm spam list with an Eldar cheese list, a Daemon factory, and a guard artillery list all as part of an unbound army all skipping across a field hand in hand with it being perfectly reasonable in the setting?

Because that is exactly the direction I expect the awesomely competent folks at GW to go in order to sell models.

Hopefully seconds before GW crashes, burns, and has to firesale all of it's assets away while it's rules designers and suits never see another job in the game industry again.

Hollismason wrote:
Yet they are making the decision without ever seeing the results. They're trying to basically divine the future.

Because we haven't seen armies in tournament formats before like this.

Sure you've had Double FOC tournaments and I've never seen a report on here that they were horribly broken.

But a Combined army is not exactly a "double FOC".

Hollisman you may have your vision but you clearly can't see. The changes GW have made to the game are not about making the game better as you foolishly seem to believe. The changes to the game are about getting you to buy more models in as underhanded a way as possible.

In essence what you are saying is that we should embrace a worse game with no fluff or continuity from a company that doesn't give two gaks about their customers.

I'll just say NO to that, thanks. You go ahead and play against someone rolling with an Imperial/nid/necron/elder/chaos allied army all you want to.

Hollismason wrote:
I don't agree because no one has seen how Objective Secured rules have played out in a tournament setting so it's incongruous to say " This will happen".

Objective Secured only works on Troops from specific type of detachment. And it's not exactly hard to target and kill Troops. If you have a beatstick list, you can easily remove that "advantage." I've already done that in a game with an Unbound army against a Battle-Forged army (and I wasn't even using a "beatstick" list, I just focused fire on specific squads to get rid of them).

dresnar1 wrote:


Hollisman you may have your vision but you clearly can't see. The changes GW have made to the game are not about making the game better as you foolishly seem to believe. The changes to the game are about getting you to buy more models in as underhanded a way as possible.

In essence what you are saying is that we should embrace a worse game with no fluff or continuity from a company that doesn't give two gaks about their customers.

I'll just say NO to that, thanks. You go ahead and play against someone rolling with an Imperial/nid/necron/elder/chaos allied army all you want to.

Just because there is an option for abuse does not mean a majority of players will abuse it. With the edition shift I have not had to buy a single new model and a lot of models I have not used for years are going to see new light as a result of the edition change. Now if you were the type who only had just enough to play the most competative lists then yes you might have to buy models. Everyone else is in a better boat, I think there will be a larger variety of armies on the table.

But I understand you have an ax to grind and that we also have different opinions. I think the edition is a huge improvement, we have seen people having more fun than they have in years playing the game. So while some people may not I am sure just as many people are enjoying it more. The sales for 7th edition have already beaten out 6th first two month total in two weeks at my local store

One thing the forge the narrative guys pointed out to me is that we all have different definitions of what is a "game" for some people it is a cutthroat super balanced thing like chess, for others it might be a complete d and d open thing with rough guidelines or some variation inbetween. Just because your definition of game does not match the companies definition does not make either person right or wrong. It just means it is not the game for you.

Yeah, I just completely murdered someone claiming that unbound wasn't a problem by proxying my biker nobz as two units of five biker warbosses, two nobz and one painboy each.
And that's not even trying to be a compettive army.

 Leth wrote:

dresnar1 wrote:


Hollisman you may have your vision but you clearly can't see. The changes GW have made to the game are not about making the game better as you foolishly seem to believe. The changes to the game are about getting you to buy more models in as underhanded a way as possible.

In essence what you are saying is that we should embrace a worse game with no fluff or continuity from a company that doesn't give two gaks about their customers.

I'll just say NO to that, thanks. You go ahead and play against someone rolling with an Imperial/nid/necron/elder/chaos allied army all you want to.

Just because there is an option for abuse does not mean a majority of players will abuse it. With the edition shift I have not had to buy a single new model and a lot of models I have not used for years are going to see new light as a result of the edition change. Now if you were the type who only had just enough to play the most competative lists then yes you might have to buy models. Everyone else is in a better boat, I think there will be a larger variety of armies on the table.

But I understand you have an ax to grind and that we also have different opinions. I think the edition is a huge improvement, we have seen people having more fun than they have in years playing the game. So while some people may not I am sure just as many people are enjoying it more. The sales for 7th edition have already beaten out 6th first two month total in two weeks at my local store

One thing the forge the narrative guys pointed out to me is that we all have different definitions of what is a "game" for some people it is a cutthroat super balanced thing like chess, for others it might be a complete d and d open thing with rough guidelines or some variation inbetween. Just because your definition of game does not match the companies definition does not make either person right or wrong. It just means it is not the game for you.

Cite your information on the sales figures.