Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

expanded FOC chart allowing extra Elites. FA or whatever

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Therion wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Therion wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Therion wrote:

On an unrelated note, do you always start insulting people when they don't agree with you?

Only when I'm feeling like doing them a favor. You need to wake up.

As has been mentioned, the last teaser also had a blurb about different types of alliances, but I suppose I'm just wishlisting and white-knighting GW, as I'm delusional and need to wake up?

You need to improve on your reading comprehension as well.

Pray tell, what part did I misunderstand? You DID say I need to wake up, you DID, albeit indirectly, call me delusional and you DID accuse me of being a GW apologist. I think you might need a break, I don't see why you need to be so darn hostile in the first place.

Just take a breath, relax, read the last couple pages again if you have to and maybe you'll just figure it out on your own instead of me having to reply once every five seconds to you.

Wait, you're the one insulting people and yet you want me to calm down? Furthermore, I'm not forcing you to do anything, so if you don't want to reply then don't, but please, tell me what I missed (and I'm not trying to taunt you on this one, I'm genuinely curious and don't think I'd change my mind reading it through again anyway).

You're trolling now since you have nothing further to add to the discussion yet you want to drag the thread into the mud. You can PM me about your request if you wish and I'll gladly explain your failures in reading comprehension. I'll even quote you the relevant parts. Consider it a favor.

About the insults, if you scroll up you'll find that I was speaking in general terms that one has to be delusional to expect anything else than the view I was proposing. It wasn't an attack towards the person I was quoting, which wasn't you by the way. It was Ahtman. You appeared out of nowhere asking if I thought you were delusional. I've no idea why you did that, but I suspect you were just trying to pick a fight.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:

TBD wrote:

Glorioski wrote:*The far bottom right box should be green

None of the armies list their own army as an ally, so unless it is specifically mentioned somewhere (which might very well be... or not) a codex can't be an ally to their own codex.

Thats a given though. Why would they need to be an ally with themselves? I don't see what that could do to help you in anyways.

If this is an add-on / extension of detachments, then adding a detachment of your own army expands your FOC. For some lists, there may be no reason to pull in units from another codex, but you may need the extra FOC slots.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:

TBD wrote:

Glorioski wrote:*The far bottom right box should be green

None of the armies list their own army as an ally, so unless it is specifically mentioned somewhere (which might very well be... or not) a codex can't be an ally to their own codex.

Thats a given though. Why would they need to be an ally with themselves? I don't see what that could do to help you in anyways.

If it is true that you get these 1 HQ, 1 TR, 1 EL 1 FA, 1 HS in addition to the regular FOC then it could actually matter quite a lot because you would be able to spam a 4th unit of something for each of your FOC slots.

EDIT: other people already beat me to it

I would assume that there are some limitations of having allies that make the extra force organisation slots balanced by some kind of drawback. I cant think of any reasonable way to implement these off the top of my head but I'm guessing allying with yourself wont be possible.

I very much doubt that allies will use seperate 'ally' slots. That would just be broken.

I am hoping the only army able to "ally with themselves" is Nids.

elrabin wrote:

balsak_da_mighty wrote:

TBD wrote:

Glorioski wrote:*The far bottom right box should be green

None of the armies list their own army as an ally, so unless it is specifically mentioned somewhere (which might very well be... or not) a codex can't be an ally to their own codex.

Thats a given though. Why would they need to be an ally with themselves? I don't see what that could do to help you in anyways.

If this is an add-on / extension of detachments, then adding a detachment of your own army expands your FOC. For some lists, there may be no reason to pull in units from another codex, but you may need the extra FOC slots.

Ok, considering that and the GK/Tau thing...

Palindrome wrote:I very much doubt that allies will use seperate 'ally' slots. That would just be broken.

Not the most reliable source of info, but that's the way it was done in the WD battle report iirc.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Cyrax wrote:Holly crap Necrons have psykers?!
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=22400026a&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Astronomican+%28Astronomican%29&utm_content=FaceBook

I think the guy in charge of the site just done goofed, cause necrons do not have access to any psi-powers at all.
I think there is a picture of the psychic powers table showing that on the first page.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Hmm, pretty sure when the Necrons got their new codex, the White Dwarf for that month mentioned something about Necron Crypteks using advanced technology that was easily mistaken as Psychic abilities.. or something like that?

The GW website does as well:

Crypteks are members of pan-galactic conclaves of technologies whose purpose is to study and maintain the eldritch devices of their race. They are masters of dimensional dissonance, singularity manipulation, atomic transmutation, elemental transmogrification and countless other reason-defying technologies. In many ways, a Cryptek's powers mirror those employed by the psykers of other races, but with a crucial difference; instead of using a mutant mind to channel Warp energies, the Cryptek employs arcane science to harness the universe's fundamental forces.

So I can see them getting some psyker stuff.

Melcavuk wrote:I'm guessing allying with yourself wont be possible.

I hope/think so too.

Otherwise something like this would be a legal army list (for Necrons for example):

Lord in CCB
Lord in CCB
Lord in CCB (ally HQ)

Warriors
Warriors
Warriors (ally troops)

Wraiths
Wraiths
Wraiths
Wraiths (ally FA)

Ann Barge
Ann Barge
Ann Barge
Ann Barge (ally HS)

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:I very much doubt that allies will use seperate 'ally' slots. That would just be broken.

Not the most reliable source of info, but that's the way it was done in the WD battle report iirc.

That was a 2500 game IIRC, its possible that the FOC expands at higher points levels. Plus its a WD battle report.

Palindrome wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:I very much doubt that allies will use seperate 'ally' slots. That would just be broken.

Not the most reliable source of info, but that's the way it was done in the WD battle report iirc.

That was a 2500 game IIRC, its possible that the FOC expands at higher points levels. Plus its a WD battle report.

Possible, I guess we'll see sometime in the next few days.

I bet all troop entries will be cheaper and you will need 25% more minis in this edition.

TBD wrote:

balsak_da_mighty wrote:

TBD wrote:

Glorioski wrote:*The far bottom right box should be green

None of the armies list their own army as an ally, so unless it is specifically mentioned somewhere (which might very well be... or not) a codex can't be an ally to their own codex.

Thats a given though. Why would they need to be an ally with themselves? I don't see what that could do to help you in anyways.

If it is true that you get these 1 HQ, 1 TR, 1 EL 1 FA, 1 HS in addition to the regular FOC then it could actually matter quite a lot because you would be able to spam a 4th unit of something for each of your FOC slots.

EDIT: other people already beat me to it

See I wasn't thinking it was and extented FOC. I thought it was the same FOC just using units from other armies. That could make more sense then. Allies just got even more stupid. So you are saying that every army can have 4 Heavies, 4 fast, 4 elites. Not sure how I feel about that. Seems alitte over the top to me.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:

TBD wrote:

balsak_da_mighty wrote:

TBD wrote:

Glorioski wrote:*The far bottom right box should be green

None of the armies list their own army as an ally, so unless it is specifically mentioned somewhere (which might very well be... or not) a codex can't be an ally to their own codex.

Thats a given though. Why would they need to be an ally with themselves? I don't see what that could do to help you in anyways.

If it is true that you get these 1 HQ, 1 TR, 1 EL 1 FA, 1 HS in addition to the regular FOC then it could actually matter quite a lot because you would be able to spam a 4th unit of something for each of your FOC slots.

EDIT: other people already beat me to it

See I wasn't thinking it was and extented FOC. I thought it was the same FOC just using units from other armies. That could make more sense then. Allies just got even more stupid. So you are saying that every army can have 4 Heavies, 4 fast, 4 elites. Not sure how I feel about that. Seems alitte over the top to me.

There would be a downside of having to take 2 hq:s and 3 troops minimum.

So you are saying that every army can have 4 Heavies, 4 fast, 4 elites. Not sure how I feel about that. Seems alitte over the top to me.

There would be a downside of having to take 2 hq:s and 3 troops minimum.

I hope everyone have their sarcasm detectors at full power

Once again GW decides one of my armies should be screwed over mechanically for fluff reasons.

Thanks GW... thanks.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

morgendonner wrote:

Scottywan82 wrote:

Altruizine wrote:Hmm, just realized that if allies of convenience are treated as enemy units, they may not be able to take objectives for you.

Actually, if they are treated as enemy units that you can't shoot at or attack, they would (unless the rules state otherwise) count as competing units for objectives.

Thats entirely based on 5th edition objective rules, and anyway majority fo ally units you take wont be scoring anyway.

That's entirely based on 5th edition objective rules...

I'm fairly certain we already got confirmation that only troops score.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:So you are saying that every army can have 4 Heavies, 4 fast, 4 elites. Not sure how I feel about that. Seems alitte over the top to me.

Some people seem to think so, and the WD battle report armies are composed like that (at 2500 pts), but there is no confirmation either way.

I wouldn't like it either. They should just have everything happen within the current FOC boundaries.

Okay... so the Necrons can ally with the Black Templars... I understand that ally =/= BFF, but I'm pretty sure the Necron codex mentions that at some point, Imotekh cut off Helbrecht's arms. So one way or another, I just don't understand how those two races are gonna fist-bump.

However, now my Necrons can bring a Rune Priest, a Razorback full of Grey Hunters and a squad of Long Fangs!

Personally though, I suspect that the Eldar will be the most-used ally, just because of Runes of Warding and how useful that will be if Psykers are getting a buff.

Robbietobbie wrote:If people use the possibility to write OP lists that's their fault for using that possibility in a way it wasn't intended to be used

I really do think that you should get the award for having posting the most inane thing in the entire thread thus far.

Not sure where I read the rumour that objectives were changing so this might be complete nonsense but I'll continue anyway. I had read that objectives would now be worth between 1 and 6 points, based on this I would ASSUME that allied troops may be able to claim objectives but at a lower points worth (i.e. my tactical marines can claim it for 3 points, my allied immortals can only claim it for one). If this were the case it could well still keep allied troops as useful, but not as useful as your own scoring units.

Some stills taken from the official preorder video (and posted on Warseer):






Weapon type Interceptor and Skyfire?


Unit type "Chariot"???

BTW here the ally matrix from the GW June/July doubles tournament:

Kroot I know you're fighting the good fight and all but damn you're late on this one.

Therion wrote:

So you are saying that every army can have 4 Heavies, 4 fast, 4 elites. Not sure how I feel about that. Seems alitte over the top to me.

There would be a downside of having to take 2 hq:s and 3 troops minimum.

I hope everyone have their sarcasm detectors at full power

This is an actual hinderance. To get the 3 extra slots (fast, heavy & elite. You'll probably won't use all of them),
you have to pay the price by spending points on 2 slots you may not want to.

morgendonner wrote:

Scottywan82 wrote:

Altruizine wrote:Hmm, just realized that if allies of convenience are treated as enemy units, they may not be able to take objectives for you.

Actually, if they are treated as enemy units that you can't shoot at or attack, they would (unless the rules state otherwise) count as competing units for objectives.

Thats entirely based on 5th edition objective rules, and anyway majority fo ally units you take wont be scoring anyway.

It doesn't matter if the allied units could score. Any unit can contest an objective. So having your allied Grey Knights next to the objective would negate the ability of your Necron Immortals to claim the objective. (To use the silly Necron army/GK allies example from other posters)

EDIT: Seems a bit silly to keep speculating before we know, but to follow the logic further, it would also mean that any units killed by your erstwhile allies would award no kill points to your army. Hmmm, I really can't wait to see for sure.

azazel the cat wrote:Okay... so the Necrons can ally with the Black Templars... I understand that ally =/= BFF, but I'm pretty sure the Necron codex mentions that at some point, Imotekh cut off Helbrecht's arms. So one way or another, I just don't understand how those two races are gonna fist-bump.

However, now my Necrons can bring a Rune Priest, a Razorback full of Grey Hunters and a squad of Long Fangs!

Personally though, I suspect that the Eldar will be the most-used ally, just because of Runes of Warding and how useful that will be if Psykers are getting a buff.

Robbietobbie wrote:If people use the possibility to write OP lists that's their fault for using that possibility in a way it wasn't intended to be used

I really do think that you should get the award for having posting the most inane thing in the entire thread thus far.

Lmao.

But yes, a lot of those ally combos are utter nonsense

We still don't know the complete ally rules though. Possible different forms/levels of alliances, etc. It could be, for example, that if you ally Orks with anyone, that they include rules where the Orks could turn upon your other army.

Therion wrote:Kroot I know you're fighting the good fight and all but damn you're late on this one.

1.) Well, I have to work sometimes and may have overlooked some detail on 20 pages per day.
2.) Pics weren't posted AFAIK, esp not the graphic including the different kinds of allies.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

morgendonner wrote:

Scottywan82 wrote:

Altruizine wrote:Hmm, just realized that if allies of convenience are treated as enemy units, they may not be able to take objectives for you.

Actually, if they are treated as enemy units that you can't shoot at or attack, they would (unless the rules state otherwise) count as competing units for objectives.

Thats entirely based on 5th edition objective rules, and anyway majority fo ally units you take wont be scoring anyway.

That's entirely based on 5th edition objective rules...

Yeah, exactly. We already know there's at least one mission module where Heavy choices can score.

azazel the cat wrote:Okay... so the Necrons can ally with the Black Templars... I understand that ally =/= BFF, but I'm pretty sure the Necron codex mentions that at some point, Imotekh cut off Helbrecht's arms. So one way or another, I just don't understand how those two races are gonna fist-bump.

Calling them "Allies of Convenience" makes it really easy to justify even the most far-fetched scenarios, which is why I'm glad they called it that instead of "Tentative Allies" or "Uneasy Allies" or any other terms that imply some level of coordination.

To give a quick and dirty example, if some Black Templars and Daemons were locked in a titanic struggle on some planet, and then a bunch of Necrons teleported in and start lighting up the Daemons without any hostile overtones towards the BTs, I'm fairly certain the BT commanders would take a "deal with it later" stance rather than immediately engaging the Necrons and all but begging to be double-teamed. You just need to imagine a resultant 500 point game taking place immediately after your original 2000 point game ends.

Do all flyers need to start in reserves, or will there be an exception for hover style ones?

That could be quite a big deal if they can't. It'd give people until turn 3 in many case to avoid Storm Raven pwnage. Crash and Burn might avoid some excessiveness too...

It'd also change Vendetta usage a lot.