Hello everyone !! Black Blow Fly here again to discuss the new double FOC (Force Organization Chart) that has been introduced in 40k6.
Basically you have the option now to run two FOCs combined as one army from the same parent codex at 2000 points or higher.
Introduction
The purpose of this article is to examine two double FOC armies – one is designed purely to create an army that closely follows its background. Another demonstrates how easy it is to create some really crazy armies that are pure win at all costs (WAAC)… oh noez the bad word!!
Some of the GTs for 2012 following the release of 6th Ed. have banned the double FOC and there are those that feel this is unfair. They say the TOs are not allowing their participants to play 6th Ed. as intended by GW.One simple solution for TOs is to simply limit the armies to 1999 points or less such as we are doing with BeakyCon.If you think about it for a moment, there is not much of an advantage using double FOCs until you start playing larger point games. Feast of Blades and NOVA have also banned the use of double FOC lists for 2012.
I know that a lot of players do not want to play in tournaments that are fifth edition in nature disguised as sixth edition (e.g., a few bonus points such as First Blood). I have been playing a lot of sixth edition since the initial release, and loving it. That said, I understand that successfully running a big tournament is a huge undertaking that requires a lot of planning and good decisions.You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
No one I know is really playing double FOC, and I think that many thoughts regarding this subject are based solely on conjecture and not actual experience. Therefore I want to show two different types of lists – one of the main reasons being to show why some TOs have a major concern. Composition restrictions have pretty much gone the way of the dodo bird, honestly, and it’s foolish to think that everyone will only design friendly lists. Tournaments are a form of competition, so it’s easy for me to understand why some players would use the double FOC to build the most extreme, nastiest lists possible. So while you might like the double FOC (which is fine), I think it’s unrealistic to also think players would use itonly to build friendly fluffy armies (by the way a kitten somewhere dies whenever anyone say fluffy in the context of 40k… so don’t be that guy)… heh.
Note – A restriction to building any double FOC list is that you must take one HQ and two troops in each detachment.
So there is a look at one of the more WAAC double FOC lists I have seen so far. Would you enjoy playing against such a list? For some people it is all about the challenge, and I think they would like a crack at it. I have actually faced off against this army, and beat it with my new Draigowing army… but I do have to say it was a very tough game and I had my share of luck. This list reminds me a lot of Ard Boyz… some people are not going to enjoy playing these types of lists. It’s kind of like squaring WAAC. I’m sure though some of you here are all big and bad – you’d probably roll right through this without even breaking a sweat but remember… not everyone is at your super level.
Fluffer 2000 point 1st and and 10th Space Marine Army List
Captain Darnath Lysander
Librarian in Terminator Armour – Null Zone & Gate of Infinity
This list is meant to recreate the old 1st and 10th concept, which I think could be very well suited for an Imperial Fist build. It is not the most effective army, but I think it would sure be a lot of fun to play. Soon I will be start playing in a local campaign, and want to run an Imperial Marine Company composed solely of terminators except for a few specialists – this is one of the lists I have been messing around with to get the proverbial ball rolling. This type of gaming is where I see the double FOC bringing a lot to the hobby as you can go completely nuts
Conclusions
Well mostly what I can say is I am looking forward to the feedback. Your opinions are very important and I often take the constructive ones to heart.
