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.

No matter what changes you make, be it altering the FoC or unit-level rules, certain armies will get better or worse. No getting around that. Ask DaBoyz.

I think what you seem to miss is that some people just buy and build a list. So if I only have the models for my specific list, you are now forcing me to buy new models to even take part even if my list is not powerful in anyway.

That said I think you underrate the screamer star...and how nasty it can be. Is it unbeatable, but just looking at your sig you are an above average player...how you rate something does little to reflect the average player.

MVBrandt wrote:
Jay and MD are correct. We're all a lot friendlier with each other than I think people guess. There are a few TOs who think of themselves in competition and backbite/etc., but they are rare and the others know them for what they're like "when you're not looking."

The NOVA "formatted" TOs already talk on a regular basis, inclusive of Bugeater, Kiladelphia, 11th Co, BFS, Indy and NOVA, but I have a chat or an e-mail with most of the other major TO's on a weekly and sometimes daily basis.

LVO is using Torrent of Fire btw, Jay. Not sure on AdeptiCon/W[T]GC.

Talk about an ugly and unnecessary comment. You realize plenty of people likely feel the same way about you, right? Your comment only serves to prove my point; y'all will never agree on anything. Maybe everyone who runs YOUR format will agree.. But that's only natural, as they're already all running YOUR format.

/smh if you're going to just complain that everything is futile then why even bother to join this conversation in the first place?

We've got multiple TO's in this thread and the one regarding digital releases, all of which have been very active in this conversation about whether we need to start the process of making restrictions/changes to the game.

No there isn't a perfect solution to anything, that's life though. The key is that players and TO's have identified we as a community need to have a talk so that's what we're all doing. Be constructive or go home IMO.

Breng77 wrote:
I think what you seem to miss is that some people just buy and build a list. So if I only have the models for my specific list, you are now forcing me to buy new models to even take part even if my list is not powerful in anyway.

That said I think you underrate the screamer star...and how nasty it can be. Is it unbeatable, but just looking at your sig you are an above average player...how you rate something does little to reflect the average player.

People that simply buy and build an army usually aren't looking to fit four armies into one. Or 8 troops. Maybe they have 3 HQ's, but taking one out really shouldn't be that hard. All Single Force Org really does is limit the 3 or 4 in one armies, which is new enough that the average gamer has yet to build an army with it in mind. It just so happens to also limit some other abusive combos that, again, the average player isn't taking advantage of.

How is saying "nasty TOs are rare and we all talk and mostly like each other" an ugly comment? I think your replies are trending this that way. I don't know you by Handle at least and I'm not sure why you are trying to trend the conversation into a trashy place.

 morgendonner wrote:
/smh if you're going to just complain that everything is futile then why even bother to join this conversation in the first place?

We've got multiple TO's in this thread and the one regarding digital releases, all of which are very active in this conversation about whether we need to start making restrictions/changes to the game.

No there isn't a perfect solution to anything, that's life though. The key is that players and TO's have identified we as a community need to have a talk so that's what we're all doing. Be constructive or go home IMO.

I'm not complaining everything is futile. I'm supporting an idea (single force org) that shares a concept which has proven to be commonly accepted (1999+1). A solution I feel is far more likely than a dozen TO's agreeing on unit-level rule changes.

 hippesthippo wrote:
All Single Force Org really does is limit the 3 or 4 in one armies, which is new enough that the average gamer has yet to build an army with it in mind. It just so happens to also limit some other abusive combos that, again, the average player isn't taking advantage of.

It really wouldn't do much to limit builds though. So seer council would just have one farseer instead, yeah that hurts their odds of getting Fortune but then they'll just take Eldrad instead and drag him along. I think that is actually the only change a single force org would cause. Daemons with CSM allies ala Nanavatti's list would lose an MC potentially. I can't think of any other top lists that would be hurt.

Nobody started these posts over those lists. They started them over formations. That this idea incidentally affects the current most broken unit in the game is a bonus. Limiting Seer Council to a single Seer, or taking away Hit and Run, pretty much ruins it.

Formations circumvent the force org altogether though, so this just restricts other lists in an attempt to catch them which it technically doesn't. It's the idea of trying to kill a fly with a bazooka.

And you won't take away hit & run though, because everyone will still take DE/Tau allies, and players will adjust. Eldrad has a 2/3 chance of getting Fortune. And seer councils don't get fortune every game as it is now, the list doesn't fall apart without it (granted, the difference between jetseer with and without fortune is massive)

I guess my point is why not just say no formations then?

Truthfully while the idea of formations annoys me, I don't think the Tau one will get used all that much other than by Tau armies. It's a huge amount of points and doesn't offer a buff commander that normal Tau allies would. Those units are good but without ignores cover / pure tide / etc they're nowhere near as powerful.

I think this still keeps coming back to how attendees actually feel.

True balance might not be what the majority want or need. They might just want certain limitations and not others. "Yeah, at X event you can still abuse Y, but that doesn't turn me off nearly as much as Z so I'm glad they banned it." It may end up being about particular safeguards or even just the perception of improved balance.

Realistically, feelings will probably be a little all over the place just because a certain amount of individuality is encoded on the gamer gene. But I hazard to guess that 12 months from now, the community will have stronger and better-formed feelings just because we'll be that much more buried by the supplemental stuff. Pet peeves will emerge.

Part of Single Force Org would have to require formation units also fitting into the FoC, that's correct. It should've been mentioned earlier, I apologize. The Tau Formation is indeed ridiculous.

Using Chaos as Primary, with the rules for formations as they are right now, I could take 2 Heldrakes, 2x3 Tankhunter Bsides, 2 Riptides (1 w/ TH), a Buffmander, and 5 troop choices for a little over 1500 pts. Add in whatever Chaos HQ you like and you still have over 200 pts to play with. That's mean. And just off the top of my head.

What I believe started these posts, and what really irks people, is the potential for four armies in one. That just doesn't fit the guidelines for the fictional universe that lured people to the game in the first place. A lot of it depends on how bad the formations get over the next month, but it's that idea which I believe bothers people. Single Force Org would be a simple solution for that problem. I'm not pretending to be a game designer here, trying to balance the game. I feel that's an unrealistic goal.

 hippesthippo wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I think what you seem to miss is that some people just buy and build a list. So if I only have the models for my specific list, you are now forcing me to buy new models to even take part even if my list is not powerful in anyway.

That said I think you underrate the screamer star...and how nasty it can be. Is it unbeatable, but just looking at your sig you are an above average player...how you rate something does little to reflect the average player.

People that simply buy and build an army usually aren't looking to fit four armies into one. Or 8 troops. Maybe they have 3 HQ's, but taking one out really shouldn't be that hard. All Single Force Org really does is limit the 3 or 4 in one armies, which is new enough that the average gamer has yet to build an army with it in mind. It just so happens to also limit some other abusive combos that, again, the average player isn't taking advantage of.

Except this is not true at all......plenty of people build armies where they take 4 of a certain slot or 3 HQ....

I also disagree that it shares much in common with the 1999+1 concept.

One is saying we are not going to use the second FOC chart but still want to play 2k. Which was something people were used to doing from 5th ed.

The other is saying we are totally going to change how allies work in that it is not a separate FOC but instead part of your own, and doing so a year+ after people have been doing it already. Banning allies would be much closer to 1999+ 1 than the single FOC idea.

Furthermore it does not really have any real impact on the things hurting the game most IMO.

Does if fix 2+ re-rolls.....nope it might make them more random, or not have hit and run, but does not solve the issue. If a guy takes one seer and the barron and happens to roll up fortune the game is still not fun for his opponent...the fact that it was less likely is no solace to him.

Serpent spam is uneffected.

Tau is generally uneffected (Ovesa star still works in single FOC)

Marine character in an IG blob can still work.

Tau Buff commander allying in largely still works.....

Heldrakes are still heldrakes (for those that hate them, but limited to 3 instead of 4, not that I've ever seen 4 mind you.)

SO you have done what prevented people from taking 3HQs unless you are spacewolves....who still can do blob guard with 2 rune priests.... and the Formations start outside the FOC entirely so single FOC does not effect them unless you say we ban formations....which you can do...but then why do single FOC in the first place as it is not the thing fixing the issue at hand. Or you can state that the formation must fit in the FOC which you could do without the single FOC idea.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Part of Single Force Org would have to require formation units also fitting into the FoC, that's correct. It should've been mentioned earlier, I apologize. The Tau Formation is indeed ridiculous.

Using Chaos as Primary, with the rules for formations as they are right now, I could take 2 Heldrakes, 2x3 Tankhunter Bsides, 2 Riptides (1 w/ TH), a Buffmander, and 5 troop choices for a little over 1500 pts. Add in whatever Chaos HQ you like and you still have over 200 pts to play with. That's mean. And just off the top of my head.

What I believe started these posts, and what really irks people, is the potential for four armies in one. That just doesn't fit the guidelines for the fictional universe that lured people to the game in the first place. A lot of it depends on how bad the formations get over the next month, but it's that idea which I believe bothers people. Single Force Org would be a simple solution for that problem. I'm not pretending to be a game designer here, trying to balance the game. I feel that's an unrealistic goal.

So FYI, with your single force org idea, that list would still be 100% legal. 2 HQs, 2 Elites, 5 troops, 2 Fasts, 2 Heavies. So this does nothing to fix that problem.

Again, I'm not trying to balance the game here. For me, that isn't the issue at hand, and I think that's an unrealistic issue to try and solve. Having 4-5 strong armies doesn't bother me.

One thing we're considering for the Michigan GT next year is a SFO+Allies FO for everyone, regardless of whether you have allies or not. So everyone could essentially ally with themselves.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Again, I'm not trying to balance the game here. For me, that isn't the issue at hand, and I think that's an unrealistic issue to try and solve. Having 4-5 strong armies doesn't bother me.

Then what are you trying to do? Stop people from bringing more than a single FOC just because?

If you are not making changes to the game for the sake of improving (balancing) it. Why change anything and then just let people go hog wild.

I actually would not have an issue if we let every army ally with itself

 Centurian99 wrote:
One thing we're considering for the Michigan GT next year is a SFO+Allies FO for everyone, regardless of whether you have allies or not. So everyone could essentially ally with themselves.

So jumping on the comp band wagon. That is not the Bill Kim I know.....

I think you need to talk to DaBoyz since they have led the charge year after year.

Breng77 wrote:

 hippesthippo wrote:
Again, I'm not trying to balance the game here. For me, that isn't the issue at hand, and I think that's an unrealistic issue to try and solve. Having 4-5 strong armies doesn't bother me.

Then what are you trying to do? Stop people from bringing more than a single FOC just because?

If you are not making changes to the game for the sake of improving (balancing) it. Why change anything and then just let people go hog wild.

I actually would not have an issue if we let every army ally with itself

I've answered that multiple times. I've stated my opinion. I'll leave it there.

Again, I'm not trying to balance the game here. For me, that isn't the issue at hand, and I think that's an unrealistic issue to try and solve. Having 4-5 strong armies doesn't bother me.

I think this sorta gets to the heart of why I postulated the single FOC including allies as a solution. It is a slippery slope to try and "fix" the game. Going in with a scalpel is a "better" idea on paper, but it is inherently more subjective. Furthermore, it also creates a slippery slope. Do you limit 2+ re-rollable in general, or just for Seers/Screamers? I tend to think that there are valid reasons for house ruling the 2+ re-roll, but I also realize that others may believe that joining Riptides to ICs, or the Tau Special Issue wargear are greater abuses.

While a FOC limitation is also subjective in nature, it is less unprecedented. Double FOC was largely considered DOA. People responded to a FOC change favorably already. Though it doesn't fix everything, it is also less intrusive in that it is a sweeping change, as opposed to opening the door to meddling with individual rules, tweaking units, or banning things outright.

Overall, it all comes down to a matter of perception. How the community at large sees it is how it should be done. While some of the major TOs talking together is nice, I do think that there may be a perceived competitive player elitism to that solution.