Double Force Org at 2000+ Points?

[Thefallen]

Personally im for, the double FOC.
Lets vote.
 

[Sir_Prometheus]

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.

Well, sure, it's that.  But it's also Overwatch (both sides).  You get charged, you want more shots to thin them down.  You charge, you want more assaulters to make sure you got there.

It's psychic powers, blessings.  The bigger the unit, the better that blessing is. Novas, the more targets there are, the more damage they take.

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

Sure, but let's take a typical draigowing.  For me, we have a like 1000 pts or so in the deathstar (1100 now, cuz I'll buy Coteaz for free rerolls, on everything), then there';s usually some psyflemen, other stuff.  These days, gonna have a Stormraven, too.

Pallidins kill a razorback a turn, so do the psyflemen, probably.  But you have 19! You probably kill like 2 pallies.   But then turn 3 comes along.  Multi-charge!  Which has been nerfed.  But that's great, no one cares.  I'll get 6 rhinos in that charge, no problem.  Krak grenades, so everyone's Str 6, if I didn't manage to get it up there with hammerhand already (probably) + however many hammers I bring.  Almost everything hits cuz I only needed 3's and I get rerolls.  They're all dead now, I may take more damage in the explosions than you managed to do to me all game.  Turn 4, same thing. 


Or completely different list, I brought a Land Raider (I'm kinda known for that).  The only thing you have to deal with that are the psyflemen, who aren't going to do a great job of it. 

Obviously I'm painting a rosy picture, and no plan survives contact with the enemy.  I'm also not trying to critigue your list building skills.  But I'm not that worried about the bazoillion+ razorback lists.  This same basic battle plan is applicable to Genestealers, fiends, BA, horde orks (which are disgusting now).  Really any large or very tough units that can get to you quickly.

Rhinos/razorbacks die dependably to shooting now, and quickly to assault. 

[keithb]

Sure, but let's take a typical draigowing.  For me, we have a like 1000 pts or so in the deathstar (1100 now, cuz I'll buy Coteaz for free rerolls, on everything), then there';s usually some psyflemen, other stuff.  These days, gonna have a Stormraven, too.

Pallidins kill a razorback a turn, so do the psyflemen, probably.  But you have 19! You probably kill like 2 pallies.   But then turn 3 comes along.  Multi-charge!  Which has been nerfed.  But that's great, no one cares.  I'll get 6 rhinos in that charge, no problem.  Krak grenades, so everyone's Str 6, if I didn't manage to get it up there with hammerhand already (probably) + however many hammers I bring.  Almost everything hits cuz I only needed 3's and I get rerolls.  They're all dead now, I may take more damage in the explosions than you managed to do to me all game.  Turn 4, same thing. 

LOL, do you just assume your opponents don't know how to play?   He doesn't need to beat your paladins as they can only claim/contest one objective.  kill everything else, you lose.    It isn't like Paladins are fast either, I don't know how you are setting up all these great multi-assaults since you only have one unit to be scared of.

[Sir_Prometheus]

I've done it before, and it was just an example.  Main point is, I don't think razorspam is good anymore. (and it was never as good as people thought it was, classic 'net list)

But rather than setting up a new discussion, I'd prefer you answer the question I (and a few others, apparently) had before.

What does a broken double FOC list look like to you Keith?  What are you scared of?

[keithb]

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.

Not owning Grey knights, and having to spend hundreds of dollars to catch up isn't exactly a great option for a lot of people.


Look.  There are a few books that are going to be able to take a lot more advantage of the double FOC than others.

Books that have cheap plentiful troops or very durable troops (or can take them as non desperate allies) AND have access to cheap, effective choices in one of their other FOC slots that they can now take more of (or use more efficiently.)

GK can clearly do this by taking advantage of the Henchmen lists.  IG has always been able to do this, and honestly probably benefits the most (also, books that can take IG as battle brothers, but less so).

I don't need to make a specific list to show that this is true.  Anyone who needs to see one as "proof" doesn't understand how this affects the tournament scene.

Any one list can be countered, the books with cheaper/better options can counter more lists.  Now with a bigger FOC, this disparity only increases, not decreases, as the less efficient lists already have less points available, and haven't already filled out their current FOC.

This all seems like basic stuff to me.

[keithb]

I don't get it.

Understood.

[Sir_Prometheus]

I don't need to make a specific list to show that this is true. 

Yeah, you do.

You don't get to say "it's obvious" and "you don't get it" with some hand-waving.

You have not said anything to support your argument that double FOC is bad.

I'm not looking to have a flame war with you, I am looking to tease out truth through debate. 

[keithb]

I don't need to make a specific list to show that this is true. 

Yeah, you do.

You don't get to say "it's obvious" and "you don't get it" with some hand-waving.

You have not said anything to support your argument that double FOC is bad.

I'm not looking to have a flame war with you, I am looking to tease out truth through debate.

Read the rest of my post, I explain exactly why I think it is bad.  Quoting one line and responding to it is not a discussion.  I haven't been doing any handwaving, YOU have been, by demanding a burden of proof that YOU want.  Why me making one list prove anything?

One list never proves anything.   One list can always be beaten by another list.   The question is will the number of lists that a given codex can't beat going to go up or down?  I would wager heavily on UP for several codexes.  THIS IS A PROBLEM.  THIS IS WHY IT IS BAD.   Less flexible codexes will suffer with double FOC for all.

[Sir_Prometheus]

I've read all of all of your posts, Keith.  I've tried to discuss it in a reasonable manner, and get down to the heart of it.

What I have gotten in reply, IMHO, has basically been, Snipe, snipe, change subject, change subject, snipe, complain about subject being changed.

What you have not done, and seem to be continuing to refuse to do, is justify your opinion with something substantive. 

You've mentioned the henchmen razorspam list a few times (without ever really trying to stand on it, as an example).  Do you really think that list is powerful, do you?  Cuz that's laughable, frankly. 

I thin you just want to complain with sweeping generalizations.  Thank you for your time. 

[andalucien]

Yeah I still haven't heard anyone give any examples of an actual problem that will be caused by double FOC.

There might be something abusive Necrons (yes, them again) can do by having 4 royal courts and being able to attach 4 representatives to each squad of Warriors.   But I can't seem to think of anything that seems remotely broken, just "interesting".

[keithb]

You are both utterly wrong, I've explained EXACTLY why double FOC is bad. I just haven't produced a list for you as an example, because it is irrelevant.

Why does anyone providing one list prove anything one way or another.

@ matt, you have misquoted me during this discussion so I simply did it back to you.

You have asked for one item, which you claim would be proof of something.  I have disagreed with the notion that said item proves anything.

You have repeatedly ignored everything I have said since I didn't provide the list. 

So which one of us is trying to have a discussion and which one hand waving?

[Sir_Prometheus]

You are both utterly wrong, I've explained EXACTLY why double FOC is bad.

Maybe you think you did?  I dunno, seems hard to believe. 

Look, I'm willing to be convinced here, I have an open mind.  God know we've seen broken things before, wouldn't suprise me that there's something out there.

But you haven't tried to do any convincing.  Just ranting. 

I'm not even asking you to do out whole formal lists.  Just point to like 3 things, and say "this, this is a problem if you allow double FOC"

Otherwise....what the hell are you talking about?

[Chase]

One list can always be beaten by another list.   The question is will the number of lists that a given codex can't beat going to go up or down?  I would wager heavily on UP for several codexes.  THIS IS A PROBLEM.  THIS IS WHY IT IS BAD.   Less flexible codexes will suffer with double FOC for all.

Without knowing much of anything about 40k, I have to believe this is true.  It's almost always true, regardless of what game or system youre playing.


I have a few questions for people:

1) Do you agree or disagree with this quote?  Why or why not?

2) Should a truly competitive tournament scene care if there's "equality" across all codices? Is it okay if some of the older / weaker books get "left behind" or actually are "too bad" to play?  What is the minimum number of codices that should be competitive if it's not all of them?

[keithb]

Thank you chase.  For reading. 

For the record, I don't expect all codexes to be "equal".  But certainly levels of inequality can be very bad for the game.  This is the problem currently with WHFB, so most(Almost all) large events have some sort of comp system or basic hard restrictions to level the playing field a bit.  To make sure that no codex is too far behind.  Double FOC will widen the gap, not shrink it.

A single list posting does nothing for this conversation.

[Bill]

This whole thread seems to be the same post made over and over just with different words. You both disagree and it is blatantly clear that neither of you agree/understand/care with what each other believes in regard to 2xFoC. I personally have to agree with Keith in that doing this will widen the gap between balance and no single list will prove this because a counter list can be made. This is all in the capacity of an all comers list scenario. I also agree with Matt; go ahead play 12 razorbacks, I can easily make a list that will laugh at it so double FoC isn't bad. Again looking at the extremes won't prove anything.

The key is to look at: in an all comers scenario of competitive list building will the imbalance of the game get greater or lessen and it is fairly clear that it will be greater. In my eyes this is more because of points cost than a matter of ZOMG vendettas are OP so 18 of them will be unstoppable. It is a matter of playing those 12 razorbacks and having tons of points to still your awesome sauce while an older (not necessarily weaker) codex would barely want to take more than two troop choices because they are so expensive and cannot take advantage of those extra slots.

There is no correct answer here because people want a different game. All my opinion of course and when I comes down to it I really don't care what route people decided to go because you have to just take what hand is dealt and try to win, or lose, or draw, or paint good. Whatever