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.

After reading through the NOVA results, I finally realized something that'd been right in front of my face for a while. GW is forcing Dual FoC down our throats.

When 6th first came out, the rules for 2k games included a second FoC. Why? GW claimed it somehow makes the game more balanced in larger games. Nobody took the bait as the rule was almost universally renounced or simply avoided altogether by playing smaller games.

As that didn't work, GW decided to start putting out "supplements". New books with a single page of rules and, of course, the ability to ally with the parent codex. In essence, you now have access to a second FoC. The question is, why is this necessary? The supplements already have access to all of the units from the parent codex.

Now, the rumors for the new Space Marine and Tyranid codices have it that included in the rules is, you guessed it, the ability to ally with themselves. Again, why is this necessary?

Why does GW seem so intent on jamming Dual FOC down our throats when we all know in our head that it does absolutely nothing to promote balance and adds very little, if anything, to the game? Heck, it's already in the main rulebook! The problem is, now that it's printed in various other forms, it's impossible to avoid it in a competitive environment without "comp," and that's a road I don't think anyone is apt to go down.

So, Dakka, what's your take on this? Please keep in mind that my point of view is from someone who enjoys travelling to large tournaments and would prefer to compete in a balanced environment.

[Everyone knows there's a GIANT pink elephant in the room. Please tell me there's another reason besides selling more $88 Heldrakes and $100 Riptides.]

Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is why the "competitive" players are trying to force their no-double-FOC house rule down our throats.

 Peregrine wrote:
Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is why the "competitive" players are trying to force their no-double-FOC house rule down our throats.

Holy crap Peregrine shuts the thread down before it even starts.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is why the "competitive" players are trying to force their no-double-FOC house rule down our throats.

Holy crap Peregrine shuts the thread down before it even starts.

And... Exalted! That's all I can say.

Honestly, I'd be willing to bet that most of it is to promote sales. The more options they give you and the more slots they allow you in any sort of standard game, the more products the average gamer might be willing to buy. There's no reason to buy more than three Hell Turkeys because you can only run three in any given game - but wait! At 2000 points and above, you can run up to six of them! Well, now you have to go out and buy three more just so you can run that super-silly six-flier list that the game's rules allow you to use.

The reason they seem to be cramming it down our throats, well, I think that's just more of the same. Games Workshop wants sales more than anything. They've been gradually decreasing the overall complexity of the game since the Rogue Trader era so that people could play larger and larger games, forcing them to buy more models. This is just another step further - by increasing the FOC in several different ways (Allies, double charts, and now supplements) players can field more and more in a normal game without having to resort to Apocalypse.

 Locclo wrote:
Honestly, I'd be willing to bet that most of it is to promote sales. The more options they give you and the more slots they allow you in any sort of standard game, the more products the average gamer might be willing to buy. There's no reason to buy more than three Hell Turkeys because you can only run three in any given game - but wait! At 2000 points and above, you can run up to six of them! Well, now you have to go out and buy three more just so you can run that super-silly six-flier list that the game's rules allow you to use.

The reason they seem to be cramming it down our throats, well, I think that's just more of the same. Games Workshop wants sales more than anything. They've been gradually decreasing the overall complexity of the game since the Rogue Trader era so that people could play larger and larger games, forcing them to buy more models. This is just another step further - by increasing the FOC in several different ways (Allies, double charts, and now supplements) players can field more and more in a normal game without having to resort to Apocalypse.

That sounds very plausible to me.

Paregrine has a point.

If the OP was more along the lines of "double FOC is another horrible GW moneygrab", we'd be happier to agree, because that's what it is. They may as well just drop the FOC alto... Not saying that, they might hear, and 7th is coming.

Its very simple to turn off to promote "compettitive" games simply by setting your tournament's house rules and points cost, however, if you wish to do so.

 hippesthippo wrote:
GW is forcing Dual FoC down our throats.
Why?
Again, why is this necessary?

How the hell are the "forcing" it down your throat when you have the option of stopping a 3 choices?

And why?
Because I have 9 Heavy Support options in my Necron-list.
That's not enough for 1500-point games, I don't even want to start about 2k-games.

No one is forcing anyone to play with allies, or double force orgs. You can play a single army list at very high points values, and still be competitive. You could also be Amish if you want to.

The new rules for double force orgs are a little less restrictive than the previous ones. (As I recall, you could have a second force org at any points value, provided you completely filled your first one. Or am I remembering wrong?) In any event, the new double force org system allows for a greater degree of flexibility. While I maintain that armies do not have any significant power difference between one another, I'll not say that all armies are balanced across all slots. In many armies, one or two slots of the force org chart are the workhorses for the army, and the double force org allows them to remain competitive in higher points games vs armies with more balance across the slots.

As far as allies go, I continued to be astounded at the cynical vitriol that this system gets. The allies system allows us as players to begin new armies one unit at a time, as opposed to the old days when, if you wanted to begin a new army, you had to buy an entire freaking army at once, then paint the whole thing. I am fully in support of a system that allows for not only a greater spread of army/unit combinations (meaning more tactical variation and flexibility) but that also supports players expanding their collection into a new army without breaking the bank.

It's a change from the last edition, certainly. This change requires us to dramatically re-evaluate our strategic thinking in our pretend wars. (Just like jet aircraft, gunpowder, and automatic weapons did to real warfare.) This tweaking between editions, the constant evolution of the game, is part of why 40k is superior to static, unchanging wargames like Axis and Allies.

If you don't want to change, if you want to keep playing with the rules from last edition, that's fine. Heck, if you want to talk about edition-cavemen, we can talk about my D&D habit, and all the older more glorious editions you like. But the game will continue to progress, with or without you. Just like progress continues in real life, with or without the Amish. I'm not knocking their lifestyle. Heck, some of them are very nice people. But I don't want to live that way, certainly not where 40k is concerned. And just like the real life Amish, I think that acceptance of progress will make you happier than rejection. If you can't get to that point, then I'll be happy to buy some of your handmade furniture.

How the hell are the "forcing" it down your throat when you have the option of stopping a 3 choices?

Ask a tyranid player what he thinks about having more elite slots or anyone with more then one good hvy support or FA choice.

So what you are saying is that they aren't forcing you, but giving you an option?

@OP:
Space Marines can ally because, well, they can.
Now finally Raven Guard and Ultramarine can ally themselves just like Blood Angels and Space Wolves can.

All the hate over allies really surprises me.
For several editions people were screaming about wanting allies.
Daemons and CSM, IG and Space Marines, etc.
Now we have it, All we get is whining.
The double FOC could have been implemented better, personally I'd have used a system more like WFB, where as your slots scale up as you scale up in points, but it's by no means terrible.

 Peregrine wrote:
Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is why the "competitive" players are trying to force their no-double-FOC house rule down our throats.

I may have some disagreements with Peregrine, but he's spot on here.

I'm not really convinced the double FoC is about sales. Most people play 1500-2000 point games, which IIRC is pretty much what the BRB rulebook recommends for routine playing (whereas I'd see recommending 3K point games would def seem to be about sales).

Having double FoC at that point range just gives a bit more flexibility over what to take. I'm basing this purely on speculation, but the hyper competative, must have 4 helldrakes/ riptides/ etc. is probably a fairly tiny proportion of GWs overall market.

 Kain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is why the "competitive" players are trying to force their no-double-FOC house rule down our throats.

I may have some disagreements with Peregrine, but he's spot on here.

Another +1 from me.

PS: Double FOC with allies is 7 Heldrakes. That'd be really funny, right until you met Loganwing or Deathwing.

How do you get 7 Helldrakes?

Double FOC is 6 Fast Attack choices and if you ally with the Black legion could you not then have another allied FA choice?

(comes in just under 1200 points IIRC)

 PredaKhaine wrote:
Double FOC is 6 Fast Attack choices and if you ally with the Black legion could you not then have another allied FA choice?

(comes in just under 1200 points IIRC)

I think you can have double allied FOCs at 2k+ points, so 8 heldrakes.

Backed with 16 noise marines with as many blast masters and doom sirens as possible.

At which point I'd guess that MEQs killed your parents.

With double FOC can you not have two allied detachments making it 8 heldrakes?

I love double FOC, I mostly play 2000 to 3000 point games and I struggle to put in enough useful stuff as the points total rises.

So then at 2k then it'd be possible to have 3 armies on the table?

 PredaKhaine wrote:
Double FOC is 6 Fast Attack choices and if you ally with the Black legion could you not then have another allied FA choice?
(comes in just under 1200 points IIRC)

Aah, yes! I forgot about the Black Legion

 PredaKhaine wrote:
So then at 2k then it'd be possible to have 3 armies on the table?

Naah, the other allied detachment needs to be from the same codex.

I may have some disagreements with Peregrine, but he's spot on here.

He most certainly is. Double force organization is an equalizer in the era of unequal allies. When the Imperials can all ally with themselves, and everyone and their mother can ally with Tau, it offers relief to forces like Tyranids while by opening up already tight or constricted slots that an army-list might need to compete. I also like that double force organization allows you essentially "ally" with yourself. That being that I think it makes more sense for my archon to bring overwhelming firepower to the battlefield than to call on his stunted great-wheel cousins for help.

 PredaKhaine wrote:
So then at 2k then it'd be possible to have 3 armies on the table?

Aww come on I was preparing a whole story about where after your parents were killed by MEQs you became like Batman and swore to become a creature of the night and bring justice to all MEQs. I even had a training montage in my head.

 Kain wrote:


Aww come on I was preparing a whole story about where after your parents were killed by MEQs you became like Batman and swore to become a creature of the night and bring justice to all MEQs. I even had a training montage in my head.

My chaos army did turn into Night Lords...

cue montage of:

Parents being killed by MEQ'S...maybe a GW truck crashing into their house and exploding - (Can I blame the explosion on finecast ) while I try to run there and get there just in time to see it
Extended man-crying scene (loads of tears, snot and completely incomprehensible attempts at talking) and shouting of "NOOOOO!" (going for oscars/baftas etc)
Inspirational music kicks in, while I repaint my army...
Turns up at GW, dressed entirely in black, unleashes 8 Heldrake army with blastmasters, doom sirens, a lord with the burning brand and Lucius (for the extra doom siren)

And in the sequel, loses to deathwing immediatly, rage flips all the tables...goes to a tibetan monastary to learn about anger management.
Comes back with an entirely PLASMA army!

In the third, I need to have a friend horribly beaten by the best ever MEQ army at which point I come out of retirement to avenge him!

And meadering back over to the topic...

I like double FOC - all my eldar armies best bits are in heavy support. Playing the 4th ed codex in 6th ed, apart from harlequins there was nothing in the elites slot that was worth it so not doing double FOC left me at a disadvantage in that once my FOC started getting a bit full, I had to take sucky units.

It's not really a force booster - it's an expansion

Read Jervis Johnson's article on "why we don't limit our codexes as much" in White Dwarf (October, 2012). That was GW's conviction behind doing this - so you can collect the stuff that you want and not be stopped to use it. Heck apocalypse was invented so you could combine everything you owned into one. Sure, it might not "balance" the game at all (except I don't know where GW said that) - it's there for a different gaming purpose. If you don't want it, then don't use it.

 Peregrine wrote:
Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is why the "competitive" players are trying to force their no-double-FOC house rule down our throats.

BAM!

On a serious note, everyone except a Nid player i know (and me) hate double FOC because it just opens up a whole new world of cheese and bullcrap. You think Nidzilla is bad enough at 1750pts? Play at 2k, its even worse and nigh impossible without a tailored list (which orks cant do so i could never even get close to beating him. Always more Nidzillas than i have MANz or Bikernobz unless i wanted to forego any lootas/boyz).

Even larger games like 2500-3000 i have no issue, but who plays at that? Its either 1999 for maximum single foc, or 2000 for those 1-3 races that actually have a use for it outside a joke (90 LOOTAZZ!!!!)

Also for the record allying with your own race isnt adding a foc, that foc is always there and its only +1 HQ, Elite, Heavy, FA, and +2 Troops. And ive never seen anyone take more than the required HQ/Troop and 1 elite or heavy, because it gets expensive and even Battlebrothers have a few downsides....though theyre pretty minor (transports)

Well you aren't forced to use the double FOC - most elite armies can build 2500 lists without even using up the standard FOC. Horde armies do need the double FOC though as a 1750 pt guard list can easily eat up all 3x FA and HS slots despite having 4+ troop choices.

I prefer to stick to the 1500-1750 pt range as the double FOC is never an issue, game duration is reasonable, and there is enough padding to prevent a deathstar from soloing your army, yet not too much room for excessive cheese.

I don't think that the Marine and Tyranid FOC reworks are some shadowy attempt to force double FOC on people. The Marines are getting it because their new codex has an emphasis on the different Chapters it encompasses, hence things like Chapter tactics and needing to pick a founding chapter if you're running your own custom Chapter. There's a stronger sense of individual identity there. As for the Tyranids, it's arguable that they need it due to their lack of allies, which puts them at a disadvantage as an army.

Supplements, meanwhile, are either labours of love to flesh out and army, an attempt to increase profit or some combination of the two, depending on your opinion of GW. Nothing to suggest that they're specifically designed to encourage a second FOC.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Why does GW seem so intent on jamming Dual FOC down our throats when we all know in our head that it does absolutely nothing to promote balance and adds very little, if anything, to the game? Heck, it's already in the main rulebook! The problem is, now that it's printed in various other forms, it's impossible to avoid it in a competitive environment without "comp," and that's a road I don't think anyone is apt to go down.

So, Dakka, what's your take on this? Please keep in mind that my point of view is from someone who enjoys travelling to large tournaments and would prefer to compete in a balanced environment.

Ummmm...you seem to be rather confused on the subject. Double FoC is applied only for games 2000 and up. It has nothing to do with allies. Just because space marines or nids could be able to ally with themselves in no way forces double FoC on anyone. Allies are just that, allies. With allies you can have 3 HQ, 8 troops, 4 FA, 4 Elite and 4 Heavy units max. This is not the same as 4 HQ, 12 troops, 6 FA, 6 Elite and 6 Heavy units you would get with a full double FoC.

I honestly think that 'nids should be allowed to ally with at least themselves to get fair access to the extra slots that other armies get due to allies. It is only fair or even change the FoC for 'nids only to allow them to just take the 3 HQ, 8 troops, 4 FA, 4 Elite and 4 Heavy units without having to ally.

No on is forcing double FoC on anyone. Just offering up different ways to ally armies together to encourage people to buy new minis for another army to draw them in with the eventual hopes that they will decide to turn it into a full army.

Skriker

A 2000pt Tervigon list using double FOC can put out an unholy supply of Troops. Not a very competitive army but it can be seriously nasty.
Tervigon 160 HQ

Tervigon 160 HQ

30 Termagants 150

30 Termagants 150

30 Devilgaunts 300

Tervigon 160

Tervigon 160

Tervigon 160

That is 90 Termgants and 5 Tervigons for 1400. Another 600 nets you

30 Termagannts 150

26 Termagants 130

Tervigon 160

Tervigon 160



Not competitive by any stretch but it is an ungodly amoumt of potential Troops. 10 Troop Units, 5 of which are T6, 6W Mcs with Biomancy access, along with capability to spawn more Termagants and 2 more for HQ. Termagants can be eschewed for Flyrants, Harpies and Hive Guard as required.