Double Force Org at 2000+ Points?

[Sir_Prometheus]

I dunno, does it matter if a player takes 9 Vendettas or 18?  I can't do anything to 9 vendettas.  Can't build a list even, that can, except for y'know, playing IG or Necrons and taking something similar. 

That's the problem, at the moment.  Not how many psyflemen a guy can bring. 

[Sir_Prometheus]

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.

Of course.  Though, problematically it seems like flyers can only really be countered by more flyers.  (Fortifications help, a little)

I have a few questions for people:

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

Not really, but this is why I was asking for examples.  I don't really see any particular builds (besides flyers) that just doubling the number you can take changes things.  This is why I keep on citing the Psyflemen example.  People can already take 6 (granted more expensively, but better) but they don't.  That indicates to me that with the opportunity to take twice as many, they won't.

I mean, people, the game already has army's that can take like 9 Land Raiders.  I love LRs, but I usually don't even take 3, cuz it's hard to find the units to staff them.  Rail guns exist.  Etc.

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?

Yes.  I think all codexes should be as equal as possible.  Heck, all units should be as equal as possible.  It's ok to have a rock paper scissors situation.  It's fine to have some units be better in some situations, and better against some units.  I'll even say it's ok to have "finesse" armies, that are great when used well but have a high price for failure, versus some more "failproof" armies.  (this last point is contentious).  But all codexes should be roughly equally competitive. The fact that it's not even remotely true is a failure on GWs part.  (I think it's been getting better lately, actually.  6th ed re-balances things a lot.  But then they add this flyer nonsense)

[keithb]

I dunno, does it matter if a player takes 9 Vendettas or 18?  I can't do anything to 9 vendettas.  Can't build a list even, that can, except for y'know, playing IG or Necrons and taking something similar. 

That's the problem, at the moment.  Not how many psyflemen a guy can bring.

So if you "know" of a list that is a problem with double FOC, why do you keep asking me for one.

I don't think the total number of vendettas is the problem(as players will run out of points).  But being able to de-squadron them and still take more than 3 seems amazingly good.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Because like I said, it's not a problem with double FOC.  It's a problem with flyers.  At least if he took 18 rather than 9, he's probably have very little on the ground, I might be able to kill them, keep my hread down and camp objectives.

I don't really see the big deal between sqaudroned or not.  Yeah, it's a little easier for them to target and maneuver if they break them off, but it's also  more kill points. 

I've said all that too.  Have you been reading my posts Keith?

Oh, and also, with two force org charts, I can take 2 fortifications with AA guns, so there's that. 

[Moosifer]

So you are not "for" double FoC, you are just looking for a way to get everything you want out of codex A (HQ's mainly) and since you have double your HQ's, are able to take allies that will fill in the gap that you think you have.

One FoC means you have to CHOOSE what you want.  Do you want two uber HQ's that tear things to peices or do you take one and then take ally contingent to deal with your problem

[keithb]

Because like I said, it's not a problem with double FOC.  It's a problem with flyers.  At least if he took 18 rather than 9, he's probably have very little on the ground, I might be able to kill them, keep my hread down and camp objectives.

I don't really see the big deal between sqaudroned or not.  Yeah, it's a little easier for them to target and maneuver if they break them off, but it's also  more kill points. 

I've said all that too.  Have you been reading my posts Keith?

Oh, and also, with two force org charts, I can take 2 fortifications with AA guns, so there's that.

Fliers are not an issue in limited numbers... Double FOC add more fliers...  1 + 1 = ??

Kill points are only 1/6 missions now, not a huge deal.

[Sir_Prometheus]

So you are not "for" double FoC, you are just looking for a way to get everything you want out of codex A (HQ's mainly) and since you have double your HQ's, are able to take allies that will fill in the gap that you think you have.

One FoC means you have to CHOOSE what you want.  Do you want two uber HQ's that tear things to peices or do you take one and then take ally contingent to deal with your problem

I assume this was aimed at me....yes, I am for double FOC, for now.  No, I don't especially need double HQs, I said that was only use I'd really have for them,  which is a little different (cheap grenade inquisitors, or psychis inquisitors).

My point from earlier is that I think double FOC helps older codexes out more than it helps mine.

Because like I said, it's not a problem with double FOC.  It's a problem with flyers.  At least if he took 18 rather than 9, he's probably have very little on the ground, I might be able to kill them, keep my hread down and camp objectives.

I don't really see the big deal between sqaudroned or not.  Yeah, it's a little easier for them to target and maneuver if they break them off, but it's also  more kill points. 

I've said all that too.  Have you been reading my posts Keith?

Oh, and also, with two force org charts, I can take 2 fortifications with AA guns, so there's that.

Fliers are not an issue in limited numbers... Double FOC add more fliers...  1 + 1 = ??

Kill points are only 1/6 missions now, not a huge deal.

Keith how did we get from "It's a problem with flyers" to

Fliers are not an issue in limited numbers... Double FOC add more fliers...  1 + 1 = ??.

  Yes, flyers are a problem.  I suppose like 1, maybe even 2 is ok, cuz you can always get a lucky 6 here or there. But anything more than 2 and I feel like I (and most people) are pretty screwed.

I said double FOC has the virtue that it let's you take two Fortifications.  Which are cheaper than flyers, so that helps.  I might take 2 fortifications, I'm not going to take 3 Storm Ravens, though. 

I really don't see how that's hard to understand.  And you were accusing me of not reading your posts?

And lastly, killpoints are 1/6 missions, in the book.  Ultimately they'll be whatever % of missions that TO's decide.  For Feast of blades, it looks to be about 1/3.  So.........

[Benjamin]

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?

I think the GW line is diverse enough for solutions to come from unlikely places. It's also so large and the pattern from GW that any equality is but a pipe dream. But all of the codices are now relatively workable. A few are clearly superior.

A truly competitive scene should not care about equality, as the goal is not equality, but winning. Some people even have fun doing this, but fun is a dirty word when serious bizness is going down between plastic space men.

[keithb]

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?

I think the GW line is diverse enough for solutions to come from unlikely places. It's also so large and the pattern from GW that any equality is but a pipe dream. But all of the codices are now relatively workable. A few are clearly superior.

A truly competitive scene should not care about equality, as the goal is not equality, but winning. Some people even have fun doing this, but fun is a dirty word when serious bizness is going down between plastic space men.

I don't want to win because my book is better than yours, I don't want to lose because your book is better than mine.

I want to win because I took a solid list that might be better than yours, but more importantly, it gave me the tools to reasonably compete against most opponents.   I want to win because I out played you, or it was really close and it came down to a few die rolls.  I don't mind losing if I've been outplayed, I don't mind losing on a die roll in a close game.  I very much mind losing because "Oh it's army XXX".

Every once in a while, you will have one of "those" games, where it is a mismatch.  And that is ok.  As long as it isn't too frequent.  I am fairly sure double FOC will increase this likelyhood.

[keithb]

  Yes, flyers are a problem.  I suppose like 1, maybe even 2 is ok, cuz you can always get a lucky 6 here or there. But anything more than 2 and I feel like I (and most people) are pretty screwed.

I said double FOC has the virtue that it let's you take two Fortifications.  Which are cheaper than flyers, so that helps.  I might take 2 fortifications, I'm not going to take 3 Storm Ravens, though. 

Tyranids can't take fortifications(well can't use the guns)  I am not sure if demons can, (but they can at least take allies who can if they can't).

There are a lot of little imbalances that can be made worse with double FOC.   Fliers can be one example of this.

Basically, builds can become more extreme. More extreme = More Rock, Paper, Scissor.
It also makes it tougher for "all comers" lists to cover everything, in fact it increases the amount of builds that they cannot cover.   While Extreme builds likely will not(or rarely) win a GT, they can easily win a 3 game event, and also(more importantly) can easily ruin your day because your balanced build cannot handle this particular flavor.

[the_trooper]

[Benjamin]

I don't want to win because my book is better than yours, I don't want to lose because your book is better than mine.

I want to win because I took a solid list that might be better than yours, but more importantly, it gave me the tools to reasonably compete against most opponents.   I want to win because I out played you, or it was really close and it came down to a few die rolls.  I don't mind losing if I've been outplayed, I don't mind losing on a die roll in a close game.  I very much mind losing because "Oh it's army XXX".

Every once in a while, you will have one of "those" games, where it is a mismatch.  And that is ok.  As long as it isn't too frequent.  I am fairly sure double FOC will increase this likelyhood.

There's the competitive ideal and then there's what GW does, now and in the future. Two wildly different things. We're trying to put a square 40k in a competitive hole.

[cryptoron]

Well, one way to iron this out, would be to have a tournament that specifically used the two FOC charts, like a 2100 point Tournament.  And to make it more "6th Ed" flavor, place two pieces of terrain on each table that must be designated "mysterious"  and put an objective in each.  And use the warlord traits.  Since Plainville is going the 1999+1 route perhaps Abington can do it "Hard Core 6th".  Then we could at least answer the arguments about it with tested data.

[Loranus]

I don't Think its even been considered at all to go the 1999+1 route at all in Plainville. I think the Next tournament discussion was something like 1750-1850.

I remember saying that If I played 2000 points with a Double FOC I would be taking a Librarian, 2 Vindicators, 2 Devastator Squads, 2 Thunderfire Cannons, 3 Storm Talons, and 4 Tactical Squads. I think it would be a fun list to just chuck out there and site back and play a defensive line holding against the enemies of the imperium.

[Benjamin]

Since Plainville is going the 1999+1 route...

The Feast of Blades qualifier is running 1999+1, which happens to be at Plainville. Subtle but very important difference.