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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
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.

When they ruined daemons in the last chaos codex and they announced the daemons book I expected some synergy to be added back in with the daemons codex and when it didn't appear I got cranky. We were already experimenting with forces of CSMs and Daemons allied together not long before 6th edition fell.

I think the allies disconnect overall comes in where people *want* allies for fluff related pairings of forces that make sense, while there is a segment of the player base that uses allies to just be even more obnoxious with their WAAC approach to the game. So as with other things some people have the attitude that if some abuse a system, then it should just be taken away completely even though plenty of people don't abuse the allies system.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hippesthippo wrote:
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..?

The simple fact is that the new "hotness" doesn't invalidate anything. It just adds new factors that need to be explored, discovered and countered. It should come as no surprise if a new unit suddenly appears on the scene, that no one will have a ready made plan to deal with it. Once it has been around for a while people adapt and it just becomes another unit. You keep complaining about forces with 4 Riptides, but those just don't scare me. By including so many points in those 4 units it limits the force I am facing in other ways, especially if an allied force is involved *and* it is used to simulate dual FoC as you are claiming, meaning the game is not even at a 2000 point level. That means fewer troops to survive to capture objectives after 5 turns. A good player will focus their attacks on the weak link and not just obsess and panic about having to kill 4 riptides.

I've been playing 40k since Rogue trader and during that time there have been an endless stream of "Unbeatable armies" or "unstoppable units" and not a one of them ever really was unbeatable or unstoppable. Once people got over it and learned how to deal with them everyone realized that they were just panicking foolishly. There is nothing to fear in a self-allied list that doesn't involve units you'll already be learning how to defeat anyway. The difference is all in your head.

As for your question on Farsight, there are plenty of reasons why they could appear on the same battlefield with regular Tau forces. The simplest and easiest is that, despite being a splinter group, Farsight and company are still concerned about the well being of the Tau people even if he dislikes the government running the Empire. If those people are threatened significantly there is no great leap to see hiim charge in to fight to protect them from a serious threat. This is actually a pretty common theme in fiction across the board: The disgruntled splinter group led by a disillusioned general who takes his forces and leaves the military, only to return at a crucial point in a war to protect the people of his Motherland and become a hero or even more likely a *martyred* hero. Besides the allies table has little rhyme or reason to it, so why try to apply logic on this example when it is clear not much logic was used to make the table.

Skriker

Skriker has nailed it here. Whatever GW does, people will always exploit their rules and make supposedly "unbeatable" lists. But is that true? No, it isn't - you just have to adapt to it. Survival of the fittest they say . Sure, double FOC's don't help you trying to beat some competitive players, but, as Skriker says, if you know how to deal with a unit, you can deal with multiples of them too.

Race to the bottom, that's pretty much 6th edition.

Meh, I don't mind dual FoC. Allows for more variation, and allows armies that would be weak at upper levels (due to gakky codex dexign / old codices / both) to still stand a chance.

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.

Ok...I am going to say this, because this needs saying. You sir, are a TFG. You are, and don't try to deny it. With that one sentence, you showed a clear and outright bigotry towards ALL other armies than the ones that you currently play. You have no even remote form of decency when it comes to considering internal game balance. You do not want to see Tyranids get a benefit of any sort, while you want the IG, Necrons, and SW to get nice and powerful, because that is what you play! Would you like me to cut to the thick of it and grab a court abuse doll so that you can show us where the Tyranid lists beat you 2-3 editions ago? Because, better yet, I don't think you understand TRUE Tyranid Spam.

HQ- 640pts
Tervigon
Tervigon
Tervigon
Tervigon

Troops - 1260
10x Termagants
10x Termagants
10x Termagants
Tervigon
Tervigon
Tervigon
10x Termagants
10x Termagants
10x Termagants
Tervigon
Tervigon
Tervigon

Fast Attack - 100
5x Spore Mines
5x Spore Mines

I built that in 3 minutes. 2000pt Double FOC. This is . This is legal, now. Welcome to 6th edition, where double FoC are legal and expected at 2000pt games. If you really want to live in the days where everything was single FoC, go back to playing 5th edition, because you still have several years left of 6th edition 40k left, and I do not see them removing this option any time before 7th edition.

 hippesthippo wrote:
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..?

The self-allyng thing is a bit necessary. I will admit to taking a Tau allied detachment to my farsight enclave....... but all I take is an iridium suit commander and a squad of fire warriors. It is just a loophole to get the iridium suit, which is just a loophole to justify using an XV9 suit without FW rules !

xruslanx wrote:

 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.

And yet they still cut half the codex out to create another.

 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.

GW already "forced it down our throats" by saying "in games of 2000 points or more you may use a second FOC". Double FOC is already part of the game and adding the ability to ally with a variant of your army doesn't really have anything to do with it. They are only "changing" things now if you assume that the default state is the "no double FOC" house rule that "competitive" players insist on forcing down our throats.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

GW already "forced it down our throats" by saying "in games of 2000 points or more you may use a second FOC". Double FOC is already part of the game and adding the ability to ally with a variant of your army doesn't really have anything to do with it. They are only "changing" things now if you assume that the default state is the "no double FOC" house rule that "competitive" players insist on forcing down our throats.

Given Hippes further somewhat illogical ramblings I'm starting to actually wonder what he's actually trying to say. I got some ranting about being able to ally with supplement codexes, how about you?

 Kain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

GW already "forced it down our throats" by saying "in games of 2000 points or more you may use a second FOC". Double FOC is already part of the game and adding the ability to ally with a variant of your army doesn't really have anything to do with it. They are only "changing" things now if you assume that the default state is the "no double FOC" house rule that "competitive" players insist on forcing down our throats.

Given Hippes further somewhat illogical ramblings I'm starting to actually wonder what he's actually trying to say. I got some ranting about being able to ally with supplement codexes, how about you?

Yeah I'm confused. According to his logic GW is forcing every rule in the rulebook down our throats. . Still ignored my previous posts too - kinda speaks for itself doesn't it?

I don't mind double FOC except for 1 little part - that it's at 2000pts. 2000 is a pretty common points level, but very few armies are going to have filled up their FOC slots that quickly, barring maybe the most economical Guard army. Honestly, if they had made it 2001pts+ I'd be 100% fine with it, but as it is it's annoying.

Honestly, 2000pts is tiny. I can get a full FOC to max out at about 8k playing Nids. But above 2k there is really 2500 which isn't different, and 3k where you may as well play Apocalypse.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
I don't mind double FOC except for 1 little part - that it's at 2000pts. 2000 is a pretty common points level, but very few armies are going to have filled up their FOC slots that quickly, barring maybe the most economical Guard army. Honestly, if they had made it 2001pts+ I'd be 100% fine with it, but as it is it's annoying.

I agree it should have been 2001-3000 for the double force org.