Allying your allies with allies as you ally with yourself

[me_in_japan]

Cool I can take what every want.

Only if your opponent says it's ok, in which case they deserve everything they get.

[Admiral-Badruck]

RT days one could take whatever they want.

[Primarch]

Cool I can take what every want.

That does seem to be the way things are going, yes.
The Force Organization Chart imposes a scarcity on your army list. Previously you had to manage your resources (points and unit slots), to build your army. Now it would appear that GW are moving away from that and allowing you to take whatever you like. Of course, they are doing so in a way which helps them to sell rulebooks and pdf files, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the FOC get squatted next edition.

As always, the people you play against are more important than the rules. I trust Badruck to take what ever he wants because he is a decent sort of chap (for an Ork) and will bring along a fun army to play.

[kojibear]

As far as allies go, I'm of the opinion that if there isn't a fluffy reason for them to be together, they shouldn't be together. But again, that is just how I like to play, not how I expect everyone too.

+1

+2

[Spevna]

RT days one could take whatever they want.

That is not actually true.

When the original RT book came out there was no FOC because it was supposed to be played as a skirmish game with a GM who would choose the forces for the players (ideally). But as long as there have been army lists, there have been limitation or an FOC of some description.

I am actually looking at the Space Marine, and Imperial Guard army lists in the Rogue Trader White Dwarf Compendium as I type this.

The Space Marine list didn't have any minimum requirements, but it did have maximum allowances;

0-8 Tac squads
0-4 Assault squads
0-2 Dev squads

The Imperial Guard army list actually had a very clear Force Composition at the start of the list;

1 Lieutenant
4+ Tac squads
1 Squad of Assassins
Up to 25% on Space Marines
Up to 25% on Squats
Up to 25% on Rogue Traders
Up to 25% on Adeptus Arbites
Up to 25% on Harlequins OR Ordo Malleus IF you were fighting demons


So while there was a lot more leeway with your force than now, there was not total freedom, and the leeway you had was constrained by fluff.

[Auxryn]

All these additions to the FOC are effectively making the FOC pretty meaningless. Of course, the 2nd FOC you get at 2000pts sort of had that effect anyway.
If you play at 500pts or even 1000pts, the FOC isn't what limits you. If you play 2000pts double force org, you aren't much limited either. If you use allies, inquisition, and these new formations, then there isn't much limitation even at 1850pts. That's where a lot of the podcasting tournament playing crowd in America and the UK are playing, so this does make some difference for them.
We rely on the FOC to rein in extreme lists. Taking nothing but dreadnoughts or nothing but land raiders isn't actually a good list, it's just an extreme list and it will win some games merely because its match-ups are generally either very good or very bad. This creates a rock-paper-scissor situation and is a legitimate complaint for tournament players in other countries. It means your tournament success will be based largely on the luck of the draw, and some of your games won't be much fun (even if you win). But we don't have a lot of tournaments, and GW has repeatedly made clear that they are trying to make a narrative game, not a tournament one. On they other hand people have run double force org tournaments before and it wasn't the end of the world.

For us, this mostly means you need to talk more to your opponent before the game. Do you want to play a very narrative game? Bring the hardest list you can? Try out your army of nothing but Broadsides? Please let me know and I bet I can bring models that will make for a fun game. This shouldn't be too hard to do. If it doesn't work out, there are plenty of other miniatures wargames we can try.

[job]

Here's my question:

If we all agree that FOC is being thrown out with all these allied army rules and allies to allies, why do we keep penalizing players who collect out of one book? Why should any player be forced to buy a separate faction and more GW merchandise to be able to place a third HQ choice or 4th elite? Armies rarely benefit additionally from having more from their own book and it the number.

[Admiral-Badruck]

In the RT it's self it says that?

I think that is in the compendium...


I could be wrong it has been like 22 years.

[Spevna]

In the RT it's self it says that?

I think that is in the compendium...


I could be wrong it has been like 22 years.

Read my post again man;

When the original RT book came out there was no FOC because it was supposed to be played as a skirmish game with a GM who would choose the forces for the players (ideally). But as long as there have been army lists, there have been limitation or an FOC of some description.

There were no army lists per se in The RT book but it is not a fair comparison as the original RT book was written with GM driven skirmishes in mind.

I am actually looking at the Space Marine, and Imperial Guard army lists in the Rogue Trader White Dwarf Compendium as I type this.

The Space Marine list didn't have any minimum requirements, but it did have maximum allowances;

0-8 Tac squads
0-4 Assault squads
0-2 Dev squads

The Imperial Guard army list actually had a very clear Force Composition at the start of the list;

1 Lieutenant
4+ Tac squads
1 Squad of Assassins
Up to 25% on Space Marines
Up to 25% on Squats
Up to 25% on Rogue Traders
Up to 25% on Adeptus Arbites
Up to 25% on Harlequins OR Ordo Malleus IF you were fighting demons


So while there was a lot more leeway with your force than now, there was not total freedom, and the leeway you had was constrained by fluff.

I think this is a better comparison as the compendium was put together with idea that players would make their own forces, therefore giving them set point values and limitations.

So yes, in the RT rulebook you could take what you wanted but comparing that to what GW is doing with the rules at the moment is not really accurate as they are two very different sized and style games. You'd be better of comparing the original RT to Necromunda or Inquisitor.

[Primarch]

Here's my question:

If we all agree that FOC is being thrown out with all these allied army rules and allies to allies, why do we keep penalizing players who collect out of one book? Why should any player be forced to buy a separate faction and more GW merchandise to be able to place a third HQ choice or 4th elite? Armies rarely benefit additionally from having more from their own book and it the number.

Some factions don't even have that restriction. Marines and marines is fine so long as they are different colours and have slightly different rules, which seems somewhat unfair when compared to other books. Even the rules governing allies seem quite unbalanced. Compare the Imperial factions with some of the Xenos and there is a big disparity in what is allowed. Nids seem particularly hard done by. Maybe their new book will go some way towards resolving this, who knows?
40K has never and will never be balanced, it's pretty much impossible given the number of different types of units and different stats involved. I do think however, that rules governing the composition of your force should be fairly even across the board. With the exception of Tyranids, no-one is forced to use a single faction, or limit themselves to one codex. Likewise, no-one is forced to add allies to their force if they don't want to. As is usually the case with GW, the players who spend the most will have a wider selection to choose from if they want to. Is this a good thing? Probably not, but it's hardly a new thing. It's just becoming more and more pronounced with each new book/pdf/supplement.
As with anything, you are free to ignore these rules if you and your opponent agree. If I turn up at Joshin and someone whips out an army with 7 heavy support units, I will probably be a little put out. If they contact me in advance and say that they want to try that kind of army I will probably agree and plan accordingly. I say this not because we have power gamers in our group who would pull out a wierd army combo without warning, but because there are times when people may want to try something different but feel they can't. Informed consent is a great idea when planning games.