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.

I think if anybody ever unpacked 8 Helldrakes, I'd just congratulate him on his victory, and move on to the next person to play against.

Yeah, I think it's really to boost sales.

I imagine GW make a lot of their sales on their large, "cool" minatures, like the Riptide. They are usually pretty cool to be honest, and they're certainly nice enough to want to include in your games. But, if you're limited to buying only 3 Riptides by the FOC, no-one is realistically going to buy more than 3 (what's the use of cool minis you can't use in game, most people will think). Hence the prevalence of the double FOC, allowing people to buy another 3 Riptides, if they wanted to.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
I think if anybody ever unpacked 8 Helldrakes, I'd just congratulate him on his victory, and move on to the next person to play against.

I would just ask if he minded if I proxied my Land Raider as the Hyperios variant and laugh when he says yes.

I'm convinced that they only way to find some level of enjoyment out of 40k is to find opponents of similar minds and play them. 40k is not a pickup game, wanting it to be one is like hoping for an awesome blind date. I'm no fan of double foc but at the same time my prefference is 1500pr games for the most part. I don't like most allies so I rarely play opponents who use them.

I'm not confused by anything. Allying with yourself is more or less Dual FOC. And when people are dominating major tournaments with 4-5 Riptide lists, and you're a competitive player.. Can you see where I'm going with this yet?

 hippesthippo wrote:
I'm not confused by anything. Allying with yourself is more or less Dual FOC. And when people are dominating major tournaments with 4-5 Riptide lists, and you're a competitive player.. Can you see where I'm going with this yet?

I can see where you are going, but I still think you're looking at it the wrong way. New books mean new units, which mean new tactics that we have to learn and adapt to. If there is a dominance of lists with 4-5 Riptides, I think it is far more likely that their dominance is due to people being unable (or unwilling) to learn and adapt their tactics because they don't want to have to change their hard learned strategies. Riptides aren't especially broken for their points costs, and 4-5 of them isn't so horrible a thing that it couldn't be overcome. Like any list that relies heavily on a single unit choice, the weaknesses of that unit become the weaknesses of the entire list. It just requires experience and flexibility is all.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. My hunch, however, is that the new Centurions will be the unit that kicks Riptide butt. So then we'll see the 24 self allied Centurion list. GW makes money, next codex comes out.

Tyranids have a new expensive unit that they can self-ally-spam that is a great answer to Centurions.

Etc.

The problem is that 40k kits are a little too expensive to be spammed and cycled MtG style.

EDIT: You're kidding yourself, or don't play competitively, if you can't see how tough the 4 Riptide list featuring the best Wargear from each codex is. Ex., JotWW seems like it would be a great answer to Riptides, right? Not so much, when they DtW on 4D6.

Really, my main point here is this:

******Why, oh why, do supplements need the ability to ally with the parent codex?******

 hippesthippo wrote:
I guess we'll have to wait and see. My hunch, however, is that the new Centurions will be the unit that kicks Riptide butt. So then we'll see the 24 self allied Centurion list. GW makes money, next codex comes out.

Tyranids have a new expensive unit that they can self-ally-spam that is a great answer to Centurions.

Etc.

The problem is that 40k kits are a little too expensive to be spammed and cycled MtG style.

EDIT: You're kidding yourself, or don't play competitively, if you can't see how tough the 4 Riptide list featuring the best Wargear from each codex is. Ex., JotWW seems like it would be a great answer to Riptides, right? Not so much, when they DtW on 4D6.

Really, my main point here is this:

******Why, oh why, do supplements need the ability to ally with the parent codex?******

I do play competitively. In the last three months, I've taken two first place prizes, both with lists chosen from Codex: Space Marines, neither with allies. I played against both allies and double force orgs. I maintain that flexibility, clever understanding of your army (as well as your opponent's), experience, and good tactics make more of a difference than who has more Riptides. And I don't believe I'm kidding myself. I've always wanted allied units from other armies, long before I was allowed to take them. The ability to find new combinations that haven't previously been used or thought of is one of the most exciting parts of the game for me, and ever since this edition dropped, I've been even more excited. I've started another three armies, and I can't wait to get into a fourth.

When it comes to Space Marines, it makes a great deal of sense for the codex to be able to ally with itself, the better to represent the dizzying array of Space Marine chapters, with their vastly different combat doctrines. I hope the next IG Codex gives us something similar, with special rules for Cadians, Catachans, and a few select others.

I haven't heard anything about such a convention with the Tyranids, and as each hive fleet is (as I understand it) largely the same, such a move would make little sense to me. Should that actually come to pass in print, rather than in unsourced internet rumor, I will agree that it was a silly move, in that codex.

You seem to feel very passionately about playing a somewhat static game and unfortunately 40k is a game that grows and changes. I can see how you could find my opinion nothing but "kidding myself," but the counter perspective is that you just don't want to change. These changes are probably not going to stop now or any time soon. I'm sorry that 40k is no longer the game you enjoy, and I sincerely hope you find satisfaction with another game system.

 marv335 wrote:
All the hate over allies really surprises me.
For several editions people were screaming about wanting allies.
Daemons and CSM, IG and Space Marines, etc.
Now we have it, All we get is whining.
The double FOC could have been implemented better, personally I'd have used a system more like WFB, where as your slots scale up as you scale up in points, but it's by no means terrible.

The reason CSM and Daemons were screaming was because Daemons were ripped from the Chaos Codex. What with the whole being one book and all then turned into a moneymaker second army.

 Deadshot wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
I think if anybody ever unpacked 8 Helldrakes, I'd just congratulate him on his victory, and move on to the next person to play against.

I would just ask if he minded if I proxied my Land Raider as the Hyperios variant and laugh when he says yes.

I'd simply unpack my Daemons and laugh.
Gotta love being the one army that cares all of sweet diddly-feth about the ap system!

I love allies. What I DON'T like, is self-allying, as it is essentially Dual FoC. And I love the rapid pace of new releases. I don't however believe that each new codex should invalidate the one before it. The new "hotness," and all.

Also, explain how it makes any sense for Farsight to ally with the Empire he dumped..?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
All the hate over allies really surprises me.
For several editions people were screaming about wanting allies.
Daemons and CSM, IG and Space Marines, etc.
Now we have it, All we get is whining.
The double FOC could have been implemented better, personally I'd have used a system more like WFB, where as your slots scale up as you scale up in points, but it's by no means terrible.

The reason CSM and Daemons were screaming was because Daemons were ripped from the Chaos Codex. What with the whole being one book and all then turned into a moneymaker second army.

You really can't say that. Deamons are a fun, fluffy army, with some fantastic models. It's not like they just cut and pasted the entries across, and if you think that then you clearly haven't read the demon codex.

I'm also quite curious to hear how your Space Marine list deals with Tau. I'll take your word that you're a great tactical player. Care to share some of your insight?

For the record, I do like the inclusion of allies. A, for the variety of forces one can field in an army. B, the differing levels of "trust" between allied forces. And C, it is a good way to try out a new army on the field of battle without breaking the bank.

As for Multiple FOCs, well any competitive tournament should have it ground rules clearly listed beforehand. Shame on you for not asking the particulars of that tournament's rules beforehand. Then you will be disappointed when someone uses an unconventional build that is totally allowable under that tournament's rules.

I wasn't at NOVA. Shame on you for not paying any attention to my post. :p

 hippesthippo wrote:
I guess we'll have to wait and see. My hunch, however, is that the new Centurions will be the unit that kicks Riptide butt. So then we'll see the 24 self allied Centurion list. GW makes money, next codex comes out.

Tyranids have a new expensive unit that they can self-ally-spam that is a great answer to Centurions.

Etc.

The problem is that 40k kits are a little too expensive to be spammed and cycled MtG style.

EDIT: You're kidding yourself, or don't play competitively, if you can't see how tough the 4 Riptide list featuring the best Wargear from each codex is. Ex., JotWW seems like it would be a great answer to Riptides, right? Not so much, when they DtW on 4D6.

Really, my main point here is this:

******Why, oh why, do supplements need the ability to ally with the parent codex?******

To be honest, from a purely fluff standpoint, it makes sense. Catachans and Cadians would more than likely be an alliance (unless they were a composite regiment formed from the remains of two weakened regiments) If you had Ultramarines and Crimson Fists on the field, they would be allied, not one cohesive army. If Farsight's forces were fighting along whatever the regular Tau call themselves, it would be a regular alliance. It makes sense.

Obviously gameplaywise it opens up shenanigans, but from a pure fluff standpoint it makes sense.

Farsight doesn't exactly chill with his old Empire homies anymore.

To be fair, what's been said so far about IG allying together and different SM Codex doctrines represent very good answers to the question I posed. At least from a fluff based perspective.

I am confused. Your complaining about the fact that Tyranids most likely will have a FoC loophole so that they can bring in extra troops. Not Allies, but just an expanded FoC. Its the one codex in the game that can't bring allies. Tyranids will never see a supplement for their codex. We won't even have the option for a genestealer cult supplement when the IG codex rolls out in 2014.

And it better stay that way dual FoC tyranids are a much harder match up then single FoC one . It is better to play against 1999 tyranids , then 2k ones .

Makumba wrote:
And it better stay that way dual FoC tyranids are a much harder match up then single FoC one . It is better to play against 1999 tyranids , then 2k ones .

So they get nothing then?

When literally everyone else at least gets allies of some sorts, and several armies can already ally to themselves more or less?

 hippesthippo wrote:
Farsight doesn't exactly chill with his old Empire homies anymore.

To be fair, what's been said so far about IG allying together and different SM Codex doctrines represent very good answers to the question I posed. At least from a fluff based perspective.

You're right, Farsight doesn't. But in the face of overwhelming odds I'm pretty sure he'd run back to them. That's basically the only reason why alliances are formed in 40k.

And, like I said before, the whole allies idea has not been designed for gaming first. It has been designed for collecting first, so that people who want to do more with the hobby other than gaming (people like painters and modellers), but who still want to play, can take their favourite units to battle and not be restricted much. The FOC is there to stop ridiculous lists, but as far as it goes it's a very light limiter. This was the mindset of GW when they changed everything around - so that people with a rather weird balance of units in their collection can still field them and enjoy using them. You just have to realise that competitive players are always going to exploit the FOC to take Helldrakes/Riptides etc. That, however, was not what the FOC or dual FOC was designed for.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Makumba wrote:
And it better stay that way dual FoC tyranids are a much harder match up then single FoC one . It is better to play against 1999 tyranids , then 2k ones .

So they get nothing then?

When literally everyone else at least gets allies of some sorts, and several armies can already ally to themselves more or less?

If someone wants to get something from playing tyranids , he can go back in time when they were OP. Not my problem they are weaker now. Am interested in IG being good , because that is the army I play and SW or necron , because I use those as ally.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Farsight doesn't exactly chill with his old Empire homies anymore.

To be fair, what's been said so far about IG allying together and different SM Codex doctrines represent very good answers to the question I posed. At least from a fluff based perspective.

Re-read the farsight fluff.
The empire disvowed him, he did not turn his back that much. he still helps them when they need him (not that they ask, he just shows up, does his thing, and leaves)

Makumba wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Makumba wrote:
And it better stay that way dual FoC tyranids are a much harder match up then single FoC one . It is better to play against 1999 tyranids , then 2k ones .

So they get nothing then?

When literally everyone else at least gets allies of some sorts, and several armies can already ally to themselves more or less?

If someone wants to get something from playing tyranids , he can go back in time when they were OP. Not my problem they are weaker now. Am interested in IG being good , because that is the army I play and SW or necron , because I use those as ally.

So you want everyone else to suck instead of having a balanced game?

 BoomWolf wrote:

 hippesthippo wrote:
Farsight doesn't exactly chill with his old Empire homies anymore.

To be fair, what's been said so far about IG allying together and different SM Codex doctrines represent very good answers to the question I posed. At least from a fluff based perspective.

Re-read the farsight fluff.
The empire disvowed him, he did not turn his back that much. he still helps them when they need him (not that they ask, he just shows up, does his thing, and leaves)

Indeed there is even some background in the new Tau Codex (or maybe the supplement) where a Hive Fleet is bearing down on a Tau planet and he drops down with something like 81 Crisis Suits + support elements, helps clear them out and then leaves.

 lord_blackfang wrote:


If someone wants to get something from playing tyranids , he can go back in time when they were OP. Not my problem they are weaker now. Am interested in IG being good , because that is the army I play and SW or necron , because I use those as ally.

So you want everyone else to suck instead of having a balanced game?

Makumba wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:


If someone wants to get something from playing tyranids , he can go back in time when they were OP. Not my problem they are weaker now. Am interested in IG being good , because that is the army I play and SW or necron , because I use those as ally.

So you want everyone else to suck instead of having a balanced game?

No , necrons or tau or eldar do not suck . I don't want any armies to get nerfed , but it is enough of a competition against those . If someones armies sucks it is his problem . A lot of people seem to be thinking the same way , because all the tournament and non tournament games I have seen here were played at 1999 max.

So they get nothing then?

When literally everyone else at least gets allies of some sorts, and several armies can already ally to themselves more or less?

Yes. they get nothing. The rules say so , People have enough problems with 1 Mc spaming list , we don't need nids runing 3 flyerants and 3-4 tevigons too. I havn't see nid players ask for IG codex buff in 5th ed , when IG had the old dex and was getting owned by kill point rules and vendettas were FW.

That's just it. If half the armies can ally with themselves, we might as well just play Dual FoC 2k games so that we at least have a level playing field. Hence, GW forcing it down our throats.

Congratulations! You've finally figured out what I'm talking about!

 hippesthippo wrote:
That's just it. If half the armies can ally with themselves, we might as well just play Dual FoC 2k games so that we at least have a level playing field. Hence, GW forcing it down our throats.

Congratulations! You've finally figured out what I'm talking about!

Congratulations! you have ignored my past two posts. The whole point of the FOC is to limit the limit of what you can take to the field in GW's mind. that's what they created it for first and foremost, so you can play with the models you want. Competitive players using it to their advantage is just a by-product.

Holy crap Peregrine shuts the thread down before it even starts.

So it's a day of the week then? I kid, I kid. lol He has a point this time.

As others have mentioned, dual FOC and allies are two different things, but my take on it is that double FOC can be a lot of fun as can allies so I'm all for both. My only complaint is that it irks me a bit that my loyalist Marines will be able to ally with themselves while my Chaos Marines ... well ... you know .... Phil Kelly ....

I would also echo the sentiment of many 'Nid players that it would be nice for them to at least be able to ally with Guard or something so that they can have Stealer cults and access to some of the things that would help round out the short-comings of their aging codex. Hopefully when they get their new book this over-sight is fixed somehow. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize that while I'm fine with the idea of allies, I think the system itself is a little ham-fisted and could use some tweaking.