An amusing thought about Force Organization...

[Waaaghpower]

I'm beginning to lose faith in Force Organization Slots. Mainly because, with the right army, in a normal, single FOC game, you can bring...
5 HQs
Usually somewhere between 5-8 HQ units who do not use up FOC slots. With Dark Angels and Space Marines working together, the number could potentially go up to 11-12.
7 Elites
8 Troops
4 Fast Attack
4 Heavy Support
A Fortification
And a Titan

[Narric]

One of the reasons I don't play large games that and I don't have a large army to begin with XD

You have also forgotten Space Walves and their Double HQ Choices. IG can bring 9 HQ choices alone.

You also seem to forget about 2000+ armies for Double FOC. Space Wolves can bring 8 HQs before Non-FOC choices, and Guard with all their Non-FOC choices would be 18 HQs

Then we have Inquisition, now we have Knight Errants & Paladins.....

[Waaaghpower]

I included Inquisition, but left out Space Wolves. (Since Space Wolves can't get free HQ slots for certain models, they ended up with about 5 free models from the allies, and 8 HQs, instead of the visa-versa.)

For a 2000+ point game, just double all of these numbers.

[CoffeeGrunt]

To be fair, this is only a problem with some armies. Tau don't make the best use of Inquisition, and likely won't get much from the Knights.

They get a very basic FOC with no options to move units between slots. It's only Imperial armies that really have the ability to ignore the FOC to a major degree with all the Battle Brother options they have.

Also, it doesn't even seem to be a problem. None of the Gorgonzola-grade tournament armies make extensive use of 5HQ setups or whatever, because that's a massive waste of points that won't cover all bases.

[Waaaghpower]

I'm just pointing out that the Force Organization Charts mean pretty much jack right now...

[Charistoph]

I'm just pointing out that the Force Organization Charts mean pretty much jack right now...

There is a point to it, but it's definitely not as solid as it used to be.

Oddly, enough,  I think there should be other changes to the FOC:
1 Warlord Slot - generally required, even Kill Team has this now, sort of.
0-1 Lord of War with the purchase of two Primary Detachments
All Elite, FA, and HS unit choices may only be selected more than twice a Detachment when four Troop Choices are purchased for that Same Detachment.
The number of Auxiliary units are based on the number of Troops and still one per slot.

From there, FOCs are separated into desired roles:
The Generalist FOC:

Primary	Allied
0-2 HQ 2-6 Troops 0-3 Elites 0-3 FA 0-3 HS	1 HQ 1-2 Troops 0-* Auxiliary units * Auxiliary Units are chosen from the Allied Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support choices.
1 small Fortification

The Aggressor FOC:
This FOC would lend weight to having Purge and Relic, while not having Scouring or Big Guns as an option.

Primary	Allied
0-3 HQ 2-6 Troops 0-4 Elites 0-1 FA 0-2 HS	1HQ 1-2 Troops 0-* Auxiliary *Auxiliary units are chosen from the Allied Elites and Heavy Support choices
No Fortifications

The Scout FOC: 
This FOC would replace Purge with Relic and Big Guns with Scouring for mission selection.

Primary	Allied
0-2 HQ 2-6 Troops 0-2 Elites 0-4 FA 0-1 HS	1 HQ 1-2 Troops 0-* Auxiliary * Auxiliary units are chosen from the Allied FA and Elite Choices
No Fortifications

The Defender FOC:
This FOC would replace Scouring with Big Guns and Relic with Crusade.

Primary	Allied
0-2 HQ 2-8 Troops 0-2 Elites 0-1 FA 0-4 HS	1 HQ 1-2 Troops 0-* Auxiliary Units * Axuiliary Units are chose from the Allied Elite and HS choices.
1 Fortification, any size

Of course, part of this is under the assumption that each player would have their own mission to work with.

[CoffeeGrunt]

The FOC still has a point, I rarely see it get messed around with. Allies are pretty common, but still restrictive in their own way...most times.

[Waaaghpower]

The FOC still has a point, I rarely see it get messed around with. Allies are pretty common, but still restrictive in their own way...most times.

Except when you end up facing 8 Helldrakes in a 2K game...

[Narric]

One thing I've recently discovered is Codex Space Marines can Ally with itself provided that the two detachments have different Chapter Tactics. That kinda makes me think whats the point of disallowing armies to ally with themselves? Especially when you only need a 2000pt army for double FOC.

I'm just pointing out that the Force Organization Charts mean pretty much jack right now...

There is a point to it, but it's definitely not as solid as it used to be.

Oddly, enough,  I think there should be other changes to the FOC:
1 Warlord Slot - generally required, even Kill Team has this now, sort of.
0-1 Lord of War with the purchase of two Primary Detachments
All Elite, FA, and HS unit choices may only be selected more than twice a Detachment when four Troop Choices are purchased for that Same Detachment.
The number of Auxiliary units are based on the number of Troops and still one per slot.

From there, FOCs are separated into desired roles:
[snip]

Of course, part of this is under the assumption that each player would have their own mission to work with.

This sounds great for pre-organised games, and possibly story-based Campaings. But for pick-up play, it would become increadibly confusing, especially if someone chooses an Aggressor or Scout FOC, and maxes out in Elites and FA respectively.

[CoffeeGrunt]

If someone shows you that Army List, Waaaghpower, you slap them and say, "no."

[Pilum]

Without wanting to sound like the "stop having fun" guy or what RPG forums call The Stormwind fallacy, I can't help but think there are two types of people looking at allies: the first goes "wow, now I can finally do an 'Army of Ultramar' / use ork pirates / re-create the Eldar rescue in <novel>". The second gives us all the shenanigans that have become well known.

There's nothing wrong with shenanigans if everyone's on board of course. The problem is when people aren't, and couple that with occasionally poisonous attitudes and the internet's love of OTT hyperbole and we get what we have.

The funny thing is, it comes from the warhammer universes' greatest strengths; that anything CAN go, unfortunately that means justifying is easy. To stick with fantasy and use LotR, I can legitimately point and laugh at someone who works out they can have 12 Nazgûl at the points level being played. Unless we're recreating a novel or one of the computer games, we can't really do that with the Warhammers apart for our own individual head-canons. "Ah", says our hypothetical Chaos player, "this is actually for the FIRST Jem'Hajic Intervention". Or more likely, "yeah this is my list, don't care, deal with it."

It's not impossible to NOT do it. Social contract and all that. Or maybe I'm just getting older, taste and attitude have changed... or it's late, I'm tired and now I'm just rambling...

[Narric]

I can legitimately point and laugh at someone who works out they can have 12 Nazgûl at the points level being played.

Did I ever re-tell the tale of when I faced a dude who field dual Vindicators alongside bare-bones 1 HQ and two Troops at 600pts? This was before 6th edition for a start.

I do sort of understand what you're saying, or at least I can draw a line of thought from it.
People have a lot of le-way when it comes to list creation, and there are dicks who will abuse the system leading to casual and sensible players to feel like all their hard work is for nought when their perfectly crafted armylist is tabled by spammed uber units.

Part of me feels this is in part GWs fault for allowing this to happen, simply becuase it means more sales for them. but at the same time, I know that it is the community that is largely at fault for allowing such dickish-ness to start and persist, and also in part for not squashing the dickishness out by unanimous agreement of what is and is not right when playing a game.
To a degree it worked when Grey Kngiths Knights came out, with people flat out refusing to play Grey Kngiht Knight players, especially those that had a track record of power gaming. It was such an OP codex when it came out, that the dicks abused every asset they could just for a victory, sacrificing the aspect of this hobby I enjoy which is a fun game whilst having a laugh.

[Tom]

I can't help but think there are two types of people looking at allies: the first goes "wow, now I can finally do an 'Army of Ultramar' / use ork pirates / re-create the Eldar rescue in <novel>". The second gives us all the shenanigans that have become well known.

There's nothing wrong with shenanigans if everyone's on board of course. The problem is when people aren't, and couple that with occasionally poisonous attitudes and the internet's love of OTT hyperbole and we get what we have.

I think I pretty much agree with the above. I think allowing allies was an excellent addition to 40k. Although I haven't ever actually used it myself I've played against a really nice chaos player who had an army of nurgle marines and plague zombies backed up by traitorous guard forces. That's the sort of thing I think the games developers had in mind.

In general I don't think 40k is written with balanced competitive play as its goal. The most obvious expression of this philosophy is "the most important rule" as written in the 5th edition rulebook (some fool decided to change it for 6th ed.) which points out that winning at any cost is less important than making sure both players have a good time and that the rules as written aren't all that important in the end. In comparison although I don't play warmachine I understand that they have a much more balanced ruleset and a more competitive gaming philosophy.

I'd suggest a good solution if you want to play 40k competitively would be a comp system like the "Swedish-Comp" system for fantasy: http://convic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Swedish-Comp-System-v1.8.2.pdf. It's quite complicated (apparently it makes lots of sense once you've tried it though) and probably not perfect but it seems like a valid way to reward interesting lists that don't spam the best units and boring combinations to play against.

[CoffeeGrunt]

My experience with Allies is similar. The only one I really see is a guy who runs Sisters/Inquisition, which is nowhere near WAAC.

[Unusual Suspect]

I can't help but think there are two types of people looking at allies: the first goes "wow, now I can finally do an 'Army of Ultramar' / use ork pirates / re-create the Eldar rescue in <novel>". The second gives us all the shenanigans that have become well known.

There's nothing wrong with shenanigans if everyone's on board of course. The problem is when people aren't, and couple that with occasionally poisonous attitudes and the internet's love of OTT hyperbole and we get what we have.

I think I pretty much agree with the above. I think allowing allies was an excellent addition to 40k. Although I haven't ever actually used it myself I've played against a really nice chaos player who had an army of nurgle marines and plague zombies backed up by traitorous guard forces. That's the sort of thing I think the games developers had in mind.

In general I don't think 40k is written with balanced competitive play as its goal. The most obvious expression of this philosophy is "the most important rule" as written in the 5th edition rulebook (some fool decided to change it for 6th ed.) which points out that winning at any cost is less important than making sure both players have a good time and that the rules as written aren't all that important in the end. In comparison although I don't play warmachine I understand that they have a much more balanced ruleset and a more competitive gaming philosophy.

I'd suggest a good solution if you want to play 40k competitively would be a comp system like the "Swedish-Comp" system for fantasy: http://convic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Swedish-Comp-System-v1.8.2.pdf. It's quite complicated (apparently it makes lots of sense once you've tried it though) and probably not perfect but it seems like a valid way to reward interesting lists that don't spam the best units and boring combinations to play against.

There is, in fact, a Swedish Comp system for 40k.

As the only forms I found it in were on a different forum and as a direct .pdf download, I don't feel comfortable linking to it directly.

Instead, a search for "LBK-mallen   for   40K   6th   V.2.2" Will reveal both the direct pdf download and various forums where it is posted.

I think it does a decent job of representing army list spamming and the most egregious of synergies.  Biased as I am as a Tau player, it seems unreasonably restrictive (having 9 or more MLs in your army gets you a point, for example), but other aspects seem to have tamed the worst excesses (or at least channeled and contained them) of our local league, or so my observations seem to indicate.  It probably helps that our league only allows up to 2 Komp points, meaning a Tau player can't even field 2 Riptides.  The lists I have built for it tend to be nice, fluffy mixtures of line troops and a few specialists, and frankly I don't think I saw any alliances in the games I observed - there's too much important stuff you need from your own army, and this league plays at what I believe is a fairly low "maximum of 2" point level.

Don't get me wrong, there were still some nasty armies in play - I saw a bike army that looked scary, and multiple Wave Serpents isn't always easy to deal with (especially given that HYMP broadsides in quantity cost lots of Comp points).

A low enough point cost (and I think this league may be at or below the threshold), I feel you end up with similar levels of cookie cutter builds as no point limit at all might produce, in that taking anything that deviates from certain basics is so heavily penalized, and not all comp points will be made equal; there will be units worth the comp point and those without, and not having comp points at all can give you victory even in defeat, if your opponent has too many in their own army.

If pressed, I'd guess 4 or 5 points is probably the best choice.  That allows for 1 or 2 potent synergies, and would require a high comp army to win by wide margins to come out ahead.  Pure theorycraft on that, though... I'll ask around my league and see what people think. From what little I've heard, this system was put into place in their league recently.



I'm personally of the opinion that there are elements of human nature and competitiveness that are going to be present in any game with winners and losers, especially one in which tournament play is not uncommon and often encouraged (through prizes, bragging rights, etc.).  In a non-tournament setting, it is well within your rights as a player to refuse play if you don't think the game will be fun.  That can even be done by a gaming store's community as a whole, if they're cohesive enough, though I doubt the gaming store will be happy to see entire armies, especially armies with recent updates where sales are expected, being blacklisted (Nor, as an old veteran or neophyte, would I appreciate my entire army being banned on the basis of some other guy's abusive list - I remember quite a few voices of dismay on another Tau-centric forum discussing unreasonable restrictions on Tau armies that everyone felt were driving away gamers and sales, and I believe it to be the same principle).

It also leads to tournaments being swamped with WAAC players who are left with no where else to play, and their domination tends to lead to even worse community hatred.  Seems like a vicious cycle to me.

If given a choice, I'd rather see something of an official comp system, or see such a system integrated into the current point system (Riptides would cost an extra 25 points for each beyond the first, or somesuch... not even sure that specific example is a good idea).  Something to represent the importance of a balanced army (or an effective point discount for non-optimized armies that can help bridge the gap in effectiveness) so that WAAC Force Org trickery and unit combinations isn't overwhelmingly rewarded more in competitive OR other games.

Ultimately, I feel a balanced approach of mechanically encouraging balanced lists (provide incentives to take otherwise poor performers, provide disincentives towards taking the abusive units) is the best approach to win over the WAAC players (who, let us all remind ourselves, have the right to play the game in the ways they enjoy it) to diversify and play with units they otherwise don't find efficient enough.  Swedish Comp seems like it does a decent job of it, though I'll have a better idea if I can manage to join the league next month.