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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xeriapt wrote:
I think its handy just because it makes list building a bit more flexible so people can build whatever they want.

You know, this isn't really a good thing. The FOC exists for a reason, so that you have to make difficult choices when constructing your list and consider using a wider variety of units. Taking away those constraints above 2000 points was a terrible idea.

Now, I don't play in a hyper competitive environment so my mileage may vary, but I have played a bunch of double FOC games. I found them to be fun and present new tactical challenges for both players.
The FOC exists for a reason, but that reason is now to limit forces at below the 2000 point level. Now when you go above that level you decide whether to use the second FOC and pay the HQ/troop tax on getting a couple more elite slots or whatever, but miss out on HS and FA when you decide to spam said elites. Its just something that we have to get used to now, and is as much a part of the game.Sure, you can get some spammy armies played by WAAC players, but that has always been a problem even before double FOC.

I remember back in second edition when people complained about the addition of special characters to the game; they said they were vastly overpowered and unbalancing. Then the new meta settles down, and nowadays you begin to wonder how Draigo gets so many places in the universe whilst being only one guy, but you don't refuse to play someone if he uses him. In a few months no-one will care about 1999+1 nonsense, and get down to playing the game as the rules intend us to.

Crystal-Maze wrote:
Now, I don't play in a hyper competitive environment so my mileage may vary

This is the key point. Double FOC (like a lot of other potential bad game design decisions) isn't going to wreck the game in a non-competitive environment where nobody is going to exploit the balance issues it creates. If your IG player is using a double FOC to take a unit of rough riders to go with his sentinels and hellhounds that's very different from the competitive player who uses a double FOC to take three more Vendettas.

Of course it's still a bad idea, since double FOC effectively means "no FOC" when you're already taking 4+ troops and a second HQ in many armies. It just completely removes one of two constraints on list construction, making it a much less interesting system than one in which you have to carefully consider whether you're making the most of your limited FOC slots.

I remember back in second edition when people complained about the addition of special characters to the game; they said they were vastly overpowered and unbalancing.

Granted, I wasn't around back then, but as I understand it special characters were overpowered. GW openly designed them to be overpowered and awesome to reflect their fluff power, with no concern for the effect on game balance. GW knew exactly what they had done with that choice, and made them require your opponent's permission to use. This is completely different from the current game where special characters are just another unit choice, and balanced appropriately.

I've played an odd pickup game at someones house it was 4v3, I was on the side with 3. It was 2k a man but our side got to split 2k three ways. As a GK player I've played a lot of 2k games so far in 6th and never took advantage of double FOC until that game. Getting a minimum 2 HQs and 4 Troops on top of everything else was never an option until I crack 2500+ points. But the only thing I got out of it was 2 Dreadknights, 2 dreadnoughts and 3 HQs. I'm sure this advantage is increased on an army by army basis. And I would never deny a tyranid player from doing this let alone anyone else.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:


This seems like a really ignorant statement. Nids have some scary builds right now, and I've seen them in action. They're one of the few armies I would actually be intimidated by, and I'm a guard player.

me too and again I dont see where they are scary . not when most stuff is played at 1999pts or lower.

Also, they NEED that extra FOC at higher point totals. Their codex has some wierd imbalances in it, and certain units they require to fight vehicles or fliers can only be taken in small numbers. It forces them to spam certain units, and really kills variety in their lists. Imagine if someone forced IG to only take 9 of each special weapon and 3 of each heavy weapon, or if space marines were only allowed to take 3 razorbacks under 2k. That's kind of what Nids put up with daily, based on the way it was described to me by a local Nid player.

and I would like to have a second aegis under 2k pts against necrons or be 100% sure that my flyers come in second . That doesnt happen . Nids are bad and not just because of this , they dont have battle brothers , no good flyers just like you said . Again no one forces people to play bad lists . If someone picked nids to play , then it is his problem , not other people . Why would others nerf their builds and their chance to win to make nid players happy . I could understand such a change happening to make marine players happy , GW makes that all the time . But nids , sob ?

Plus, it's kind of stupid not to allow it. No army does worse because of it, so it only benefits people

If one army works better all other automaticly start being worse.

. For example, I could easily bring 6 tanks in my IG list at 2k. However, due to FOC restrictions, I have to take them in groups of 2, which wastes their firepower. Once you go to double FOC however, it allows each one to run on its own, which makes them more effective. I'm sure plenty of other armies have similar problems that would be remedied by the extra slots as well. For example, maybe an ork player wants to run 3 KFF's and a warboss so that his green tide will have better coverage and a Warboss as a solid warlord.

but runing 6 tanks makes little sense . it is better to spam vendettas , more point efficient . Same with orcs more Warbosses means more nob bikers . yeah I actualy think a lot of people dont want to play against 4 nob biker lists . It would give too much of an adventage to people with even cash to have armies build for both 2k and under 2k games.

And of course, there's the other problem with limited slots. Usually there's a no brainer choice in each slot, like the CCS for guard, or a KFF mek for orks. These units are so good, you really can't afford to not take them. However, you only have 2 HQ slots, so it limits how much "fun" stuff you can bring. With dual FOC slot, you can finally see IG players running primaris psykers and Lord Commissars, you'd start seeing more shock attack gun meks, or maybe even a wierd boy. Obviously these aren't choices one would see at a tournament, but for friendly games, it lets you bring a lot more fun and interesting units, since you don't have to worry about using up important slots that you need for your army to stay alive. Heck I may even start bringing a small ratling unit just for kicks.

All I know is that here the difference between a tournament army and a non tournament army is that the tournament army has more models painted and probably has a printed list . And I wouldnt bring ratlings why bother when one can take sm scouts as battlebrothers for IG and even then one would have to rethink , if it is worth losing a SW rune priest.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xeriapt wrote:
I think its handy just because it makes list building a bit more flexible so people can build whatever they want.

You know, this isn't really a good thing. The FOC exists for a reason, so that you have to make difficult choices when constructing your list and consider using a wider variety of units. Taking away those constraints above 2000 points was a terrible idea.

(And just to emphasize the fact that "build whatever you want" is not necessarily a good thing, imagine if we also removed point costs. Now you can build any army you want, but do you really think that this will be an enjoyable game?)

Having 2 force org charts and not having pts costs isnt really the same thing, double force org allows more options, not having pts costs breaks the whole system of how a game is organised.

If your worried about some waac player abusing the double force org then is not really the rules at fault its the waac guy being a pain.

You can say the same about allies, but, as they are are part of the rules now its just something that you deal with.

cant assume people wont abuse it if they can so best to keep it at 1 org chart

Wrong, double FoC is not no FoC.

No FoC is Appocalypse. Where your army can be nothing but dreadnoughts.


2 FoCs mandates 2 HQs and 4 Troops. Most armies out there would avoid doing that if possable. Its a fairly significant mandate at 2000 points(or even 2500)

I do it very often. Many games at my FLGS are at 2500 and while some people are &^%$s and spam things others do not. I tend to run 4 elites and 5 heavy support along with 3 HQs. The difference is perhaps that I do not have more than 3 of any one choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

2 FoCs mandates 2 HQs and 4 Troops. Most armies out there would avoid doing that if possable. Its a fairly significant mandate at 2000 points(or even 2500)

It really depends on the army. My DE get to 4 troops and 2 HQs with vehicles in less than 1000 points.

@Makumba, I can tell there is no way we'll be able to agree on this one, so I'm just going to say live and let live.

All I'm going to say is that double FOC lets armies bring things they normally won't take. Like the nid player said earlier, normally they always have to take 3 of the warrior broods because they are their best option. There are other useful choices, but you'll never see them because the warriors beat them out. Double FOC lets people take units like Zoanthropes again without hurting their list, which is a good thing. Who cares if it's not the most "optimal" build, it gives players more options, which I'm always for.

It lets people bring things that aren't the "autoinclude" for each slot at higher games. IG can bring other HQ unit's alongside CCS's, Orks can bring a weirdboy alongside their two big meks, space marines can bring a stormtalon alongside some landspeeders and a bike squad, etc. For the people who aren't in the cutthroat tourney enviorment 24/7 (Aka pretty much everyone) it allows people to bring more varied and interesting lists with units we would never see normally. Yes, there will be people who make rediculous spam armies to be WAAC, but I dont think they'll be that scary to a more balanced list. A list that spams a ton of a single unit is just begging to get torn apart, no matter how amazing that one unit is. So dual FOC doesn't really bother me. And the tourney's can keep banning it, it's their events so they can do what they want. But I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
@Makumba, I can tell there is no way we'll be able to agree on this one, so I'm just going to say live and let live.

All I'm going to say is that double FOC lets armies bring things they normally won't take. Like the nid player said earlier, normally they always have to take 3 of the warrior broods because they are their best option. There are other useful choices, but you'll never see them because the warriors beat them out. Double FOC lets people take units like Zoanthropes again without hurting their list, which is a good thing. Who cares if it's not the most "optimal" build, it gives players more options, which I'm always for.

Yes I agree. I don’t know how many time either someone or I post a list and there are screams of “Why are you taking that, there are much better things in that Elite/Fast Attack/Heavy Support FOC.”
Another example is with both Space Wolf and Blood Angels. We have Elite Choice Force Multipliers, [Wolf Guard/Sanguinary Priest]. If we want to take them that really limits our use of Elite Forces for a Power Weapon and Leadership bonus. So to us this is a great boon, this does make us puppies take more Grey Hunters so this is not that bad.

It lets people bring things that aren't the "autoinclude" for each slot at higher games. IG can bring other HQ unit's alongside CCS's, Orks can bring a weirdboy alongside their two big meks, space marines can bring a stormtalon alongside some landspeeders and a bike squad, etc. For the people who aren't in the cutthroat tourney enviorment 24/7 (Aka pretty much everyone) it allows people to bring more varied and interesting lists with units we would never see normally. Yes, there will be people who make rediculous spam armies to be WAAC, but I dont think they'll be that scary to a more balanced list. A list that spams a ton of a single unit is just begging to get torn apart, no matter how amazing that one unit is. So dual FOC doesn't really bother me. And the tourney's can keep banning it, it's their events so they can do what they want. But I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

As far as the Balance, if both sides are this way it should not be a problem.

Also remember in that far off time in the far past the double FOC as 3,000 points, but was locked up in the basement like Chunk.

The other real change was Allies and Fortifications. I think this can get broken just like most other things. What I find funny is all of the people screaming of these like they are some sort of freebee.
To be honest my main reason for a Double FOC would be the double ADL and Quad Guns for my Guard. My problem with this is something said earlier, unless I go with Veterans, do you know how many points 4 Infantry Platoons are?

So to us this is a great boon, this does make us puppies take more Grey Hunters so this is not that bad.

doesnt it just make your run more cyclon WG for your 5-6 units of long fangs . 4 squads of GH are enough for 2k pts and while technicly one could get HQ crazy with 3/4+ HQ or try to build a huge TWC spam army , why bother when LF are both cheaper[in cash.important for many people] and better all round [6th is shoting edition].

Like the nid player said earlier, normally they always have to take 3 of the warrior broods because they are their best option. There are other useful choices, but you'll never see them because the warriors beat them out. Double FOC lets people take units like Zoanthropes again without hurting their list, which is a good thing. Who cares if it's not the most "optimal" build, it gives players more options, which I'm always for.

but it doesnt make stuff better. It just gives the illusion that just because they have access to breeders , which can be troops, they can try to spam stuff and think their army works "better" . Warriors are bad because RL kill them and str 8+ weapons are common in most good armies , It is patch work fix of a bad codex. Just like giving sob 6 exorcists .

It lets people bring things that aren't the "autoinclude" for each slot at higher games

well one cant realy force people not to play stuff they want . unless I dont know it is FW and FW is not accepted localy.

IG can bring other HQ unit's alongside CCS's, Orks can bring a weirdboy alongside their two big meks, space marines can bring a stormtalon alongside some landspeeders and a bike squad, etc.

but why would anyone take wierd boy ? even spam they are bad . More IG HQs ? what for . Getting ally HQ is better and it is not like the IG ones come for free .

A list that spams a ton of a single unit is just begging to get torn apart, no matter how amazing that one unit is.

ok , just out of pure interest how do people ."easily beat" a necron flyer wing or how did they :easily beat"star cannon spam in the 3ed or eldar circus in the 4th or GK gunlines in the 5th. Unless by easily you mean buying models only to play against that one dude , with that one army , because if that is the anwser ,that am sure that in most countries people do not own 5-6+ armies just to counter the best set up of other armies . From what I have seen in Europe is people owning one army most of the time with some units they can switch out to get a different build , I have never seen a guy plop [I remember someone here giving this as an example how to counter necrons] 9 hydras on the table.

But I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

again most non necron/flyer armies have huge problems with dealing with a 30 LF army , specialy when it still runs enough GH to not have problems with counters or objectives.
A necron army with 2 death rays and 2 anihilation barges is a lot more bothersome then a 1999 list with 3 death rays or 3 anihilation barges or a 1/2 mix of those. And again it still runs enough troops to work . Most armies dont get such army synergy , not to mention the fact that a necron player may own 2 scyths and 2 AB , while lets say a chaos player wont have more then 9 oblits . It creates extra unbalance in a enviroment that is and never was realy balanced to begin with.

2 FoCs mandates 2 HQs and 4 Troops. Most armies out there would avoid doing that if possable. Its a fairly significant mandate at 2000 points(or even 2500)

So you claim that before 6th ed , when people played 1500+ games they were not using at least 2 HQs for their armies and 4 troops ? which armies were those out of the good ones ?

I played my Khorne CSM/Daemons against a Tau list with 15 broadsides at 2k. Nearly single vehicle I brought died on turn 1. Once the Bloodthirster, Bloodcrushers, and Daemon Princes got into his lines things turned around nicely though.

how is playing with 2 force org charts at 2000point that different than playing with 1 force orc chart at 1000 points?

doesnt it just make your run more cyclon WG for your 5-6 units of long fangs . 4 squads of GH are enough for 2k pts and while technicly one could get HQ crazy with 3/4+ HQ or try to build a huge TWC spam army , why bother when LF are both cheaper[in cash.important for many people] and better all round [6th is shoting edition].

No!

Those are Codex: Space Wolf “The Play the Rules not the Game” Players.

I own 12,000 points of Space Wolves going all the way back to m1989. I have 3 Long Fang Pack and only one of them is the 5x ML Version. I can count he times I shoved a Cyclone with them on 1 hand.

I do have a TWC “Death Star” and I run a 13 model Logan/Njal/Björn/Arjac list, but those are my for fun list. what I do run for “Comparative” Games is Grey Hunter Spam.

I could easily pull of Long Fang SPAM, but I [and some others] find it boring.

Now that I defended us [Sane is such a wrong word] reasonable Space Wolf Players.

OH YES! You can build some real broken list, but that can be said for a lot of armies. I have though about a 18x Russ and 18x Vendetta List. I have a Chaos Marine Player who is looking a 3x Oblit, 3x Vindi List and one who want to make a 18x Fex Army. The one that actually scares me is the 12x max Mob Cyber-Grot Army.

I also think the 1999+1 thing is just stupid [and a little childish], a good 2,000-2,500 game is its own balance.

Hey Makumba, ever heard of the word "fun"? Not every list I make is for a tournament, and that goes for many other people as well. Yes, I know wierdboys are garbage most of the time. But they're a ton of fun to play with. What I was arguing is that I could still make a strong list with say 2 KFF meks for covering my army, and then I can throw a shok attack gun or a wierdboy in for a fun unit to keep the game interesting. As for IG HQ's, the CCS is one of the best in the codex, and the way you're talking shows you don't know much about the codex. Other HQ's, like the primaris pysker and the Lord Commissar can be great, but you always need at least 1 CCS to make your army work, especially for foot guard, which is what I play. With dual force org, it allows me to take my "mandatory" CCS, and then bring the lord commissars and primaris pyskers to buff my infantry in other ways. In a single force org, you would never take these two units, as they eat up slots you need for the CCS.

Same goes for why I might want to take units other than big meks or warbosses for my HQ, or why I would rather take fast attack choices besides nothing but vendettas all day every day (or, you know, the fact that they run between 60-80 bucks to get all the lascannons for them and the valkyrie kit) Dual Force org doesn't have to be about crushing your opponent with tourney lists all the time. You can make some fun, interesting units for goofing around with friends. Maybe I want 4 shock attack gun meks, 90 lootas, some dakkajets, and the bare minimum of grots, just to make a silly shooty army. Dual Force Org would let me do that. Yes, it's a terrible army, but it would be hilarious to play with, and that's the whole point of this game in the first place. We're playing with little plastic toy soldiers dude, relax. We don't have to take tourney lists every single game ever with only the "best" units possible.

But, it's pretty obvious we're going to disagree here. I said last time was my last post, but this one definitely is. Relax man, and try playing some more relaxed games, it sounds like it would do wonders for you.

Makumba, your really missing the point badly here while you run off with your speaches.

The idea is variety and choice, not spam this because its better.
Your 1st post about nids made it pretty clear that its a players problem for using a bad army.

1: Nids can be run to a pretty decent level.

2: Like me, alot of other nid players have had them for 10+ years, you know, through the various editions, not just flavour of the month type thing.

3: What has been said is right.
The options have opened up pretty well allowing armies to take units they dont normally take.
Biovores have allways been ignored simply for trygons/mawlocs.
Now you get an option to take a cheap HS option that can do something.
Lictors will see use once again, since nids elite slots were allways hives/thropes (otherwise they cant hurt armour to any real degree)

I like the new change, should make it interesting again.
Granted, you will see the odd daemons player who will run max thirsters and princes, but thats life eh?

 Xeriapt wrote:
If your worried about some waac player abusing the double force org then is not really the rules at fault its the waac guy being a pain.

No, it's the fault of the rules. Good rules are balanced and enjoyable no matter how hard one player tries to win. Unfortunately, GW is lazy and writes {censored} rules, so anyone who makes even a token effort to learn about how to make a good list can break what little balance there is.

Also, whining and crying about "WAAC players" is just stupid. A player who brings a strong list using the full potential of double FOCs is just bringing a strong list. A WAAC player wins at ALL costs, including cheating, rules lawyering, etc.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Wrong, double FoC is not no FoC.

No FoC is Appocalypse. Where your army can be nothing but dreadnoughts.

It's effectively no FOC most of the time, since a 2000 point army is really unlikely to fill six fast/heavy/elite slots because of point limits, and you're almost always bringing at least four troops at that point level so you can actually have something alive to claim an objective at the end of the game. The only "tax" on removing the slot cap is taking a second HQ, but most armies have cheap and efficient HQs that you aren't going to feel too bad about bringing (or you're already bringing anyway, hi rune priests/CCS/etc).

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
All I'm going to say is that double FOC lets armies bring things they normally won't take. Like the nid player said earlier, normally they always have to take 3 of the warrior broods because they are their best option. There are other useful choices, but you'll never see them because the warriors beat them out. Double FOC lets people take units like Zoanthropes again without hurting their list, which is a good thing. Who cares if it's not the most "optimal" build, it gives players more options, which I'm always for.

And the point is that this just doesn't matter. You can't judge the impact of a rule based on idealistic situations where everyone uses it the "right" way to bring more "fun" in their list, you have to consider the worst-case scenario where people exploit its full potential to increase their chances of winning. It might be nice if people only used double FOCs to increase the diversity of their unit choices, but that doesn't change the fact that many (if not most) players who take a double FOC list will be doing it to maximize the amount of their best unit they can spam.

Now, I'm not saying that the game is completely ruined if that happens, but we need to be realistic about what's going to happen once people finish buying the models for double FOC lists.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Those are Codex: Space Wolf “The Play the Rules not the Game” Players.

Please, continue whining and crying about the "right" way to play the game.

I actually used second FOC in my game. It was 2,5k and I was playing Eldar.
I guess I gained a single HS slot (2 Fire Prisms, WW and Reapers lol). It wasn't hard because at that point level having multiple troops is justified and having 2 HQs is not a big stretch. I would take them even without the need of second FOC. I could have gone with full 6 HQs but I wanted to playtest as much different units as possible.
I like the possibility of running 6 Wraithlords.