Double Force Org at 2000+ Points?

[Sir_Prometheus]

It all bothers me, but the Double FOC seems like something we can simply not include.

Right, and now we are back to "how many slots of the Double FOC you can fill and with what".

I don't think you have made any fact or logic based arguments that double FOC is a problem.  I'm happy to hear them if you got them. 

[keithb]

So.. things having to do with money are not fact based? 

Also, I don't see why we circle back because you feel like it.


Explain to me the fundamental game difference between a 1999 point game, and a 2000 point game, and why a second FOC is required for the latter.

If the game NEEDS a second FOC at 2000, why doesn't it need it a 1999?

FACT: There isn't a difference between a 1999 point game and a 2000 point game. (Other than 1 point)
LOGICAL QUESTION BASED ON FACT:  Since there is no difference, why does a second FOC open up at that point value when there is NO other FOC changes at any other point value?

YOUR ANSWER SO FAR:  I don't know.  GW says so?


Games workshop has shown time and time again, they give little to no shits about you or what you want.  They make some nice models, have some interesting IP regarding the story.  But that is really it.  They have basically pulled out of the tournament scene.  They let us manage it now.  We do a better job.  I understand you 40k guys are newer to this than Fantasy guys, but trust us, it gets better.  Serious effort is put into trying to balance fantasy where the shittier books have a much better chance of being competitive at major events than 8th edition alone,  The really boring, stupid shit has been banned!


I admit, I don't know what is best yet.  No one does.  But I can still smell bullshit, even if I haven't precisely located the turd yet. 

[Sir_Prometheus]

Keith, pick a point, defend it.  Basically, whenever you're challenged on a particular point, you move on to a different thing, and make horrible strawman arguments.  You're just ranting, without purpose, basically.

Complaints Keith has made so far about Double FOC:

They wrote rules to make money

I agree with you on this.  Pisses me off.  Doesn't piss me off nearly as much as the Flyer/Fortifications thing, though, which is basically just forcing you to buy new models.  Allies and FOC I'm more ok with, as a lot of folks had the models anyway.

Why do you get a whole double FOC at 2000, and nothing at 1999

I don't know, rules are arbitrary?  Why is it all of a sudden "grand" larceny at a certain $ value?  I'm sure a more elegant solution could be re-written, GW didn't write it.  Want to point out all the times that's happened?

We should rewrite the rules, like we do for fantasy

Hey, I have no problem with that, actually (Sam and Chase do, though) but I certainly think none of us have an idea how to rewrite them yet.  You certainly don't, you've refused to lay out the problem beyond "GW wants monies".  I want several months, and at least a few tournaments, before I've formed an opinion.

Double FOC must be stopped.

Why?  How?  Because of what?  You keep on saying this, then you insist that's not your point, then you go back to saying it again, then I point that out, then you ask why I went back to this again?

What the heck, is the problem, with double FOC?

State your case, man!  Don't go on about "GW is evil" or "It's not all about GK, Matt".  Tell me what, where, how, you think a second FOC is going to cause all these problems. 

[Benjamin]

I'm the type of person where I need to see 2000 in action to render a judgment. That said, 2000 point lists in the meantime could provide solid evidence.

[Logan007]

I agree with Ben.

C'mon, we're talking about playing with toys here. Just run a tournament with all the rules from the rulebook in  place and see how it works out. I'm all for the first 6th edition tournament not counting towards Feast of Blades if anyone's worried about that.

[Moosifer]

Just using GK as an example at 1654 points you are looking at

Coteaz
12 3x Warrior units in Razorbacks with psybolt ammo
6 Psyflemen

Now I am not sure if the second HQ is needed for the FOC bonus but by taking that you can:

Crowe
5 man Purifier unit with 2x Psycannon, 2x Halberds, Deamonhammer in a rhino

13 scoring units, 19 vehicles on the table

If you dont see why brokenness can occur with 2 force orgs you crazy

[Benjamin]

That seems crazy, but what exactly stops someone else from taking that list? I could see if somehow the other person's options were limited, but it seems to me a larger version of the 500 point philosophy. Any crazy thing you can do, I can do.

[Typhus]

At double force org, that's 2 fortifications. 

[Ian Mulligan]

I believe only the standard org gets doubled, not the fortification or allies org.

[Moosifer]

"Any crazy thing you can do, I can do."  If only things were equal.  I would agree with you if everyone had access to everything.  That way I can out retard your retard.  But not everyone has access to everything.

I think for the forseeable future you will be seeing 1999+1 MAJOR INDY GTs.  There is enough complication for TO's already with allies, but adding in double force org you might see people's head 'splode esp now that GW is suing the writer of Army Builder's 40k/Fantasy file

[Benjamin]

If only things were equal.

And if wishes were fifths, we'd all be drunk.

... esp now that GW is suing the writer of Army Builder's 40k/Fantasy file

We have a plan in trying to get ahead of that problem, at least for Sam's sake checking lists.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Just using GK as an example at 1654 points you are looking at

Coteaz
12 3x Warrior units in Razorbacks with psybolt ammo
6 Psyflemen

Now I am not sure if the second HQ is needed for the FOC bonus but by taking that you can:

Crowe
5 man Purifier unit with 2x Psycannon, 2x Halberds, Deamonhammer in a rhino

13 scoring units, 19 vehicles on the table

If you dont see why brokenness can occur with 2 force orgs you crazy

I actually don't think that's a very good list.  It reflects "5th edition thinking" if you will.  I don't think razorspam was as good as everyone thought it was in 5th, and there have been a lot of changes meant to nerf it, besides. 

I would be happy to play you, with you using a double FOC if you like.  I'll be using some relatively balanced list, with a mix of GK units, and perhaps some Tau allies.  (also probably using coteaz, cuz he's awesome, but not to spam henchmen, more for his psychic powers)

There's a lot of suble changes in 6th that make big units better.  MSU is not really the way anymore.  I think. Obviously don't have enough experience to really know. 

At double force org, that's 2 fortifications. 

I think that's a good thing, to the degree that it suppresses Flyers.  I see Flyers as a real problem. 

I believe only the standard org gets doubled, not the fortification or allies org.

It all doubles.  It specifically says you get allies "per detachment", and the fortification slot is part of the normal FOC, so if that's doubled, it's doubled along with.

I think for the forseeable future you will be seeing 1999+1 MAJOR INDY GTs.

I think you're right, but I also think it's cowardice.  We should try out the new rules for now.  I may come around to thinking 2 FOC are broken.  But I need some data on that, and we're not going to get it with everyone playing 1 FOC.

This stuff happened in the change from 4th to 5th.  TO's were designing missions like they really wished it was still 4th for like 1, 2 years.  It would be nice if we got past all that faster this time.  Stuff may indeed need to be rewritten, as Keith advocates.  But I want to try it as is, first, make informed decisions. 

[Benjamin]

There's a lot of suble changes in 6th that make big units better.  MSU is not really the way anymore.  I think. Obviously don't have enough experience to really know. 

I'm thinking they may have made vehicles a bit too fragile.

[Moosifer]

I think we are undervaluing vehicles esp when there is a mass of 19 of them

[blantyr]

Are there hot units out there these days that people would want to overload with?  Once upon a time there were funky lists that let one bypass force organization charts.  Eldar Swordwind armies could play Dark Reapers as troops, much to the dismay of marine players.  Obliterators became elite on an old Iron Warriors list.  For a while I put down 7 obliterators plus three heavy support choices.  In the days of rhino rush, this didn't make me very popular.  If I won first move, a rhino rush army became a very small infantry army in a hurry.

It seems to me that allies and double force org charts would allow the same thing.  If one wanted seven heavies or seven fasts, easy enough.

These would be what I used to call 'one trick pony' armies.  They might be totally grossly overwhelming against one army in one sort of terrain, and nigh on useless against another army on another sort of terrain.  In a store with a strong tradition on how terrain is set up, dominated by one sort of army, one might gain unreasonable advantage with a one trick pony force designed to take out the dominant enemy.  In the old days when more than half the armies were rhino rush marines, I didn't really care for one trick pony armies, but one had to design to stop rhino rush.  Every once in a while I couldn't resist putting down an unbalanced list just to put the rhino rushers in their place.

These days there is a far greater diversity.  Unbalancing one's force to defeat a specific sort of enemy is risky when there are so many sorts of opponents.

Veterans might consider the old unbalanced lists, and try bringing a few of them back into play.  I don't like the style personally, but with 6th Edition being new, we might want to see if what once was broken is still broken.