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

[Flammenwerfer13]

I can get into the current absurd knee jerk reactions to double force org and the straw-man arguments but I'm going to pass that up and get to my main point.

I've been hearing about this new creature in the wild called the 1999+1 Tournaments, only see it posted once. Beyond the fact that it's a rather childish way of saying 2000 points no double force org they're trying to make a statement. What this really broadcast to the normal gamers out there is this "We're hardcore about winning and don't want to lose and wish we still had 5e".

Now I'm starting to see a divide growing between three segments of the community.
On one side is the split competitive community. Half are ok with the new rules allowing 2 force orgs at 2k and the other half aren't. Right now it hit and miss with tournaments that allow it and those that dont.

The other (actually over whelming half maybe 2/3) of the gaming community could care less. They want to have fun and play. If it's allowed in the game by the new rules then so be it.

What I see over the next 3-4 months is a settling of the current meta and the raise of 2k tournaments. Why you ask? Well this allows certain armies to maximize the use of certain restricted areas, like Elites for Eldar and Tyrinads, and HS for Tau to name a few. What this also allows is a greater and fluffier Army lists that you're normal gamers love. While 2k is the standard in my area for years I'm already starting to see 1750-1850 Tournaments bump up to 2k or 1999+1 level. A lot of this is do to allies right now. As for times we just ran a 2300 point tournament here locally and the average time to finish was around 2 hours even though we allotted 2 1/2 hours. Those crying about longer game play with 2k aren't wrong.

If tournament organizers are going to start banning double force org lists with either the childish 1999+1 moniker or 2k no double force org then expect to see smaller and smaller crowds over the next few months. What next are you going to ban, allies? Maybe change up the how reserves work, oow allow Tyrinads to be BBF's with IG!!



Double Force Org at 2000 points is here to stay, get use to it, embrace it, love it and above all have fun!

(disclaimer I do not run nor plan on running a Double Force Org Army)

[plasticaddict]

Hmm, our local events had been down to the 1500-1850 level well before 6th hit and shows now signs of changing. Interesting to see that in your area games are getting bigger.

[Chris Copeland]

I don't know anyone who is against Double Force Org and I know a LOT of players. As Plastic Addict said, most tournies seem to run 1500-1850 and have for a LONG time. I don't know how interested I'd be in playing a 2k point tourney just based on time!

[evilamericorp]

The ban on double force orgs is to let more people have fun at tournaments. If you want to play a friendly game at your FLGS at 2k points, no one would complain about you having 4 heavies or making a fluffy aspect warrior eldar list. The problem that TOs don't want to deal with is that the competitive players you hate so much ABSOLUTELY WILL abuse the system to make armies that are no fun to play against. 2k makes for fun games if fun is the goal, but at a tournament where winning is the goal 2k double force org Coteaz shenanigans makes you want to flip the table and punch the douche across from you in the throat.

I want to play 6th with all the rules as much as the next guy, but if I'm paying a bunch of money to fly across the country and throw some dice, I want to have fun at the table; not have to deal with the ******* who brought 12 inquisitorial henchman squads or 90 lootas.

[The AKH]

To be quite honest, I would wager that GW put that provision in the rulebook because the single force organization chart starts to run out of slots pretty fast between 2000 and 3000 (3000 being the low-end cap for Apocalypse).

One can see how they may have authored that expecting people to fill up their first chart then take another as a sort of "bonus" for games of, say, 2500-4000 points. And knowing GW, the fact that you could mix and match for 2-4 HQ, 4-12 Troops, 0-6 of everything else at 2000 points flat was probably overlooked.

I don't think there's any sense in banning it outright, but I wouldn't begrudge a TO running a "2000 point" tournament to request that entrants only use a single force organization chart. It's no different than running a Planetstrike tournament (which would use a different chart entirely) or simply stipulating "For this next tournament, you are limited to 1 selection from every section except Troops". It's well within the TO's rights.

And hey, where I'm from, one very rarely sees tournaments in the 2k range anyway. Largest tourney I ever played in (in 7 years of hobbying) was 1850.

[Sainhann]

Which is why GW should have gotten rid of the Force Composition Chart. I have hated it since 3rd Edition when it came out.

If they had went with a percentage system there would have been no problem.

HQs - MAX 20%
Elites - MAX 20%
Troops - MINIMUM 25%
Fast Attack - MAX 20%
Heavy Support - MAX 20%

This comes to a total of 105% which is not possible so something would have to be less then it Max.

As points you get.

HQs - MAX 400 points
Elites - MAX 400 points
Troops - MINIMUM 500 points
Fast Attack - MAX 400 points
Heavy Support - MAX 400 points

By using this system there is no way you can get 90 Ork Loota's.

Plus it will allow those players like me who love to run with large numbers of troops.

The Force Composition Chart hurts several armies because they are limited in the number of troops that they can put onto the table (I.E. max of just 6).

Imperial Guard was given their Platoon structure because of this stupid chart. Thus I have no problem putting 186 Guardsmen plus 4 vehicles in my 2000 point force.

But for my Orks I cannot build the force that I want to. The same goes for my Eldar.

The Min/Maxing of today comes from this chart.

Take the bare minimum 2 troops and Max out everything else.

I was hoping that GW would get rid of it. But they didn't but they did stated that at 2000 points you can fielded two of them.

So now we have individuals trying to stop that because they know that if given the chance the WAACer's will field the bare minimum 4 troops and max out something else.

But with the above percentage system their is no way to do this because of the point limitations put onto the everything except troops.

Using the above system at 1500 points for Fast Attack you would be limited to just 300 points worth of Fast Attack, at 1850 this would be 370 points and for 2000 it would be just 400 points.

So you can't get 1100 points of Fast Attack at 2000 because that would be 700 points more than what would be allowed.

You give players a chance to be a WAACer they will take it and that is why many TO's are not going to allow two charts at 2000 points.

Because they know what many players will do.

[newdigitaltau]

I think the reason that GW would never do percentages is simple.... Math. For new players having to figure out percentages would be a huge turn off and would hurt sales. I know you won't think this way but it's too complicated in an already argumentative and complicated game.

[Mr Mystery]

Percentages work fine in Fantasy...

Up to 25% lords, up to 25% heroes, at least 25% Core, up to 50% special, up to 25% rare, with repetition limits on special and rare units, which increase at 3,000 points.

I think TO's could adapt this to 40k very nicely.

[Denzark]

The problem is that the universal leveller for 40K shoud be the points cost. It is an imperfect way of giving forces that should be as effective as each other.

Imperfect in that it is a fact that the desire to sell models, and that codexes written closer to the current edition or for it, will be more effective than those written for an earleir edition.

If you don't think the points cost is (roughly) correct, then you can't guarantee that any pickup game or tournament game will have a modicum of balance. Unless you actually want to play at a handicap why would you ever?

Therefore a key part for me in the game is you must have a basic level of faith in GW to keep things fair - again, if you don't have this, why would you play?

On that basis, 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?

If you play to 2000pts and don't allow the full double FOC, the game being played is not 40K. It may be a hybrid, so the winner's bragging rights can be 'yes I won the hybrid 40K tournament in little ****tington - no its not real 40K because the TO changed the rules'.

If someone spawns x units, that means they can't take y units. So it should all balance out in the end. Admittedly the ability to alpha strike with 18 Leman Russ variants is quite harsh to fight. But you'll get over it.

Similarly, disallowing fortifications or allies. If you do this, you are not playing 40K. You are playing the TOs own *******ised version.

End of.

[Wildeybeast]

I don't know anyone who is against Double Force Org and I know a LOT of players. As Plastic Addict said, most tournies seem to run 1500-1850 and have for a LONG time. I don't know how interested I'd be in playing a 2k point tourney just based on time!

I don't dislike it, I just don't feel it's necessary, so I play 2000 point games without it. 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. I reject the OP suggestion that changing the rules is the mindset of win at all cost players and mutually exclusive with having fun. GW have said time and again (not that anyone listens) that rules are framework to help you have fun playing with their models. They don't expect a dogmatic adherence to them, they are just there to help you build the narrative of your game. If your narrative requires altering those rules, go ahead. I see no difference between TO's not allowing allies or double FOC and them creating special rules for a unique scenario people play. It's not about 'making a statement', it's about creating what they feel will be fun game for people. If that's not your idea of fun, then you don't have to join in. I don't see why this is an issue.

Percentages work fine in Fantasy...

Up to 25% lords, up to 25% heroes, at least 25% Core, up to 50% special, up to 25% rare, with repetition limits on special and rare units, which increase at 3,000 points.

I think TO's could adapt this to 40k very nicely.

Though most of the kids that get into GW do so through 40K. Warhammer tends to be aimed at, and played by, a more mature gamer in my experience. That said, your average 12 year old should be able to work out 25% of 2000 with little difficulty, if they can't our education system is in even worse trouble than I thought.