The new Hate and te raising of double force Org and 2000 tournaments.

[Wolfshade]

I think that this is a local problem and it seems to have dawned from a fundamental different approach to gaming.
On BoLS I invariably see 2000pt game as the standard size, in my gaming group we play somewhere between 1500 pt sized games as standard so the whole double force organisation chart issue does not appear at all.
Similiarly, I have never seen a "net list" being played.
Part of me agrees with Denzark

...I hate TOs changing army laydown. The worst I played in limited IG to 1 HS slot becuase they considered the IG overpowered. Who in hell says a random TO is better at balance then a seasoned game designer?

Similarly, I find Wildeybeast comment quite compelling

There is nothing wrong with either TO's or casual gamers picking and choosing which rules they use and which they don't, or even adding or altering rules, so long as everyone agrees on it beforehand

[Denzark]

Casual gamers - fine. What I do in my man cave is my business.

And obviously TOs can do what they like to their own tournament. So actually i agree with Wildey.

But the PRINCIPLE for me is Joe Bloggs editing the rules at will.

There is no different between saying 'no double FOC' and 'no second dice for half range melta'. Or any other rule they fancy.

You don't go to the world cup football tournament and find the host nation has taken out the offside rule - the rules are laid down as a world standard.

You don't go to the olympics to the triple jump and find the host nation has added in a need for the competitors to stop and high five their coach before the jump - there is a standard.

So TO's should just admit that when they alter the international standard - laid down by GW not those INAT loonies, they are not actually playing 40K, something similar but not identical.

Its like 40K is Rugby Union and 40K with changed rules is Rubgy league. Everyone knows union is far superior.

[Wolfshade]

Its like 40K is Rugby Union and 40K with changed rules is Rubgy league. Everyone knows union is far superior.

So true

[Wildeybeast]

Casual gamers - fine. What I do in my man cave is my business.

And obviously TOs can do what they like to their own tournament. So actually i agree with Wildey.

But the PRINCIPLE for me is Joe Bloggs editing the rules at will.

There is no different between saying 'no double FOC' and 'no second dice for half range melta'. Or any other rule they fancy.

You don't go to the world cup football tournament and find the host nation has taken out the offside rule - the rules are laid down as a world standard.

You don't go to the olympics to the triple jump and find the host nation has added in a need for the competitors to stop and high five their coach before the jump - there is a standard.

So TO's should just admit that when they alter the international standard - laid down by GW not those INAT loonies, they are not actually playing 40K, something similar but not identical.

Its like 40K is Rugby Union and 40K with changed rules is Rubgy league. Everyone knows union is far superior.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Firstly, even if we did all play to the same global rule set, GW arbitrarily changes the rules every so often and thus changes the way the game is played. To use your example, can you imagine the outcry if FIFA decided that the game needed spicing up and introduced added time multi ball? There would be utter chaos and breakaway leagues everywhere, so it is hardly surprising when GW changes the rules that some people choose not to adopt all of them.

Secondly, GW does not want everyone to play to a global standard. They are first and foremost and model making company. They want people to buy their cool models and have fun playing with them, so they make rules. There is a universal standard of rules so that you can turn up at a random store and have a game with Fred Bloggs, without needing to make up your own rule system. However, they really don't care if you and Fred Bloggs agree that night fighting doesn't add anything to the game (that you enjoy) and want to take it out, and as a consequence feel that First Blood will be unfair, so take that out as well. Why shouldn't Fred Bloggs edit the rules at will as long as everyone playing is happy? GW actively encourage you to make up your own campaigns and scenarios with altered rules. The rulebook is a guide to how to play the games nothing more.

As for the argument it's not 40K, that's nonsense. At it's heart, 40K is as much, if not more so, the model range and the gamers as it is the rules. Without those, the rules are just words on paper.

[DrLove42]

I agree with some folk. I don't like the idea of a 2nd FoC and see it just as something that will mostly be abused. You can fit a great army into 2000 points without it.

And people saying "if you remove the 2nd FoC why not just play 5th ed!". This isn't true. The 2nd FoC doesn't change the way the game is played. It change the way the game is organised. There is a difference. You still now play FNP as a 5+ and the same with cover. You played wound allocation from the front, and night fighting as a + to cover. You're at no point saying otherwise to these. You're still playing 6th ed, just balencing things a bit. Some armies benefit from double FoC more than others.

I'd propose a middle ground. Stuff in one FoC doesn't affect that in another. For instance, Cotez makes Henchmen troops, but only in the FoC hes in. The other FoC must have its minimum of 2 troops, but these can't be henchmen as Corteaz is in the other chart.

[SotonShades]

Sorry, but I don't agree. Firstly, even if we did all play to the same global rule set, GW arbitrarily changes the rules every so often and thus changes the way the game is played. To use your example, can you imagine the outcry if FIFA decided that the game needed spicing up and introduced added time multi ball? There would be utter chaos and breakaway leagues everywhere, so it is hardly surprising when GW changes the rules that some people choose not to adopt all of them.

Actually, most sporting associations do change and update their rules on a nearly annual basis. Either to cover people bending the rules to gain advantage (such as whichever football team it was who had towns on hand to dry the ball for throwins, giving them something like a 10% gain in throw-in distance) or to improve the sport for a televised audience. Many rules changes are also brought in because of changes in technology, such as goal line technology and hawkeye, being able to assits referees, umpire's and officials. Admittedly, most of these rules changes only effect players at the highest standard, but there are a good number that filter down to those that play on the park of a sunday afternoon.

That said, I deffinitely agree with your opinion in some parts. GW have always said that they encourage houserules and the like. TOs have always messed with the game by writing their own missions, having a direct effect on the balance of the game. So on that score, if they want to take out Double Foc, Allies and or Fortifications; great. more power too them. I for one actually would like to see a "Challange Series" of tournaments. Something like a few one day tournaments (possibly with an overall leaderboard to keep track of the series) where you completely mess with the FOC. Mabye one with no minimum requirements, one where you cannot take Heavy Support Options, or no HQ choices (Could be very interesting for Warlord choices), ones where you run on percentages rather than FOCs at all, maybe a cavern/tunnel based day where barrage weapons and flyers are out and there are tight confines that make vehicles and MCs nigh impossible to use effectively. Amongst other ideas

Equally though I have sympathies with Denzark's arguments. If you are only playing 40k at a torunament, especially if you have anyone from anywhere able to enter, why change anything that is presented in the rulebooks, codicies and FAQs? Everyone has access to the same option to do double FOCs and it is there choice if they use it. I'd actually steer clear until I got to much larger games because the cost of 2 HQs and 4 Troops choices generally limits what you can do in terms of 6 Heavy support choices and the like, but that is just my point of view. If someone wants to give it a go, I'll glad try to prove my point over a few games, see if my more balanced list ion a single FOC can show them what's what!

GW could easilly have sorter this out by saying double foc was availible in games OVER 2000 points :P Oh well, live and (hopefully) learn...

[Rapture]

I don't see why the double FOC isn't allowed but allies are. My biggest problem with this is that it seriously abuses the one army that cannot have allies. The tyranids are left in the cold because they represent such a small minority when compared to all of the players of all the other armies who feel that they have enough FOC freedom with the new allies rules.

Disallowing double FOC is such a serious rule change because it does not apply evenly to all of the armies (as the tyranids suffer more).

[Anggul]

I can understand the disdain for double force org. It doesn't come up much as far as I can see as a lot of people tend to play 1500-1850 anyway, but when it does you can just have some silly firepower in your lists. Spamming the hell out of Annihilation Barges and the like comes to mind.

Now you might say: 'But both sides can do it, so it's still fair.'

This, however, means that both sides are going to do pretty much the same thing, taking loads of Heavy Support and maybe an extra HQ. The fun thing about 6th is that it's shaken up everyone's lists and made people play more different forces, why would we want to reduce that? Yes, it's up to the players, but some people will just play a super-spammy list to win without putting much thought into it. The whole point in the FOC is to make you have to decide on what you will and won't take, if you've got room to do whatever you want then it doesn't take much choice any more.

[GrogDaTyrant]

Yes, it's up to the players, but some people will just play a super-spammy list to win without putting much thought into it. The whole point in the FOC is to make you have to decide on what you will and won't take, if you've got room to do whatever you want then it doesn't take much choice any more.

That's the inherent problem to the Force Org charts. In a sense, they encourage spam to a degree. Two of my favorite all time wargames don't use anything remotely close to a 'force org chart'.

[Wolfshade]

FOC brings balance to the game, otherwise we are back in the Halcyon Days of 2nd ed and those crazy games