Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

241 - 260 of 841 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
If allies come back, they should work exactly like they do in Fantasy. (ie: they're for multi-player games and/or 'opponents permission' type games and most definately NOT! for mainstream play!)

Allies coming back, especially into any kind of a competitive setting will just screw up the entire edition and turn it into a giant mess of OTT stupidity. Doesn't matter how you try and restrict it, all allies will do is allow armies to ignore their buint-in weaknesses and the game will suck rotten monkey-balls.
Imagine for example a GK paladin army, now backed-up by blobsquads of IG?!
Or how about CSM's summoning in bloodcrushers + plaguebearers?!
God forbid you run into Eldar teaming up with their dark cousins! (fotuned venoms & doomed squads getting hit by wyches should be real fun, right?!)
I'd hate to be the poor bastard getting to fight hordes of Ork boyz backed-up by Plague Marines & Oblits...

Allies just break the game. Leave them to multi-player & special senarios, or else risk destroying the entire game for the next 4-5+ years!

I agree, I really hope if there are allies rules that they are for multiplayer. Also I'm hoping that it would be more than order vs. chaos since 40k seems to have more teams then that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
Aw go on just imagine the fun I could have with an interceptor squad with my blood angels or a furioso or death company dreadnought with my grey knights.

I can hear the cries of cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeese
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I have to agree with allies breaking the game, but more importantly it takes away from the fun. I enjoyed the xenophobia and the chaos infighting, it gave the game character. Frankly character is all this game has going for it, i started playing void 1.1 metropolis, all pewter miniatures, cheaper, better rules, and the rules are a free pdf. if they break the game, i will have no choice but to move on.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,705 Posts
Just because a rule is there, doesn't mean everyone will use it. Allies used to be in the game. 2nd Ed had it, and right up until the early 2000's you could take them. Didn't break it then, unlikely it will do so now.

Yes, you'll have idiots who abuse it. Yes, some will powergame with it. But after the initial "oh my god I can do this wheeeeeee!" factor wears off, it'll be business as usual.

All that has to be included is the phrase "with opponents permission" or something similar, and hey presto! All sorted if you don't want to face the lists presented in previous comments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,811 Posts
I have to agree with Silver Tabby. Having played with allies in 3rd edition and allied units in 5th edition WH for tournaments I can honestly say it was not broken.

At most you could take a couple units of Battle Sisters with a IG army, or take the equivalent of a platoon of Guardsmen and a Leman Russ in a SoB army. You could put an Inquisitor with a IG army to give them an interesting unit. Other than that, you really couldn't do much and it in no way broke the game. I can't say I ever rolled a tourney with my IG which included 20 SoB.

What you would probably see at most is the ability to take 1-2 Troops and a tank (Predator, Razorback etc) from another army. Game breaking? No. Fun? Yes.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,889 Posts
Just because a rule is there, doesn't mean everyone will use it.
BING ! For goodness sakes guys if there is something in the rules, especially something as nebulous as Allied forces and you don't want to play it THEN DON'T one of the beauties of the GW game is it has that flexibility.

So rather than stomping off in a huff to play another game that is riding on GW's coat tails and will probably disappear by the end of the next summer like so many before..... just play the game as you and your mates want to play it.

I think that is on Page 2 of the rule book.
 

·
Heresy Online's Pet Furby
Joined
·
8,723 Posts
But after the initial "oh my god I can do this wheeeeeee!" factor wears off, it'll be business as usual.
We must have the same Royal Engineer friends..... :laugh:

Anyways, topical reply. Wayyy back in the mists of 2eD 40k my gaming circle abused the allies as a way of kickstarting a new army project. Sure, we had armies of CSM with a fledgling IG contingent or SM with 'nids etc, but we found it added a bit of hilarity to the games and it spurred us on to get the new armies up to spec to game with properly.

But alas, as already pointed out there will always be the cheesemongers that abuse things in the wrong way :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
I honestly dont think that "cheese" gamers, or their counterparts, the flexible users of allies, will count for much when considering when, if, or how allies might be added. Since when did GW add or remove a major game mechanic because the players loved/hated it?

Every mention so far, of any alliy capable force, was a designed factor when the codices in question were released. WH were designed with allies in mind, as were the old CSM and Daemons, even as far back as 2nd ed, as some of you have noted.

How many current codices, that will still be current during the first years of 6th ed, have been designed with allies in mind?

In my humble opinion, I would say, none. In fact, aside from Daemons, most of the new books have been accused of being OP or easy to abuse to some extent (which, to be fair, can be said about most books, I know). This would lead me to conclude that they were never intended to be joined by any other units from any other codex - why would they be needed?

However, the allies system in WFB is a clean, simple and straight-forward way of joining two different armies, and it only takes up, what? around 5 or 10 pages in the rule book? Though I may not agree with its inclusion into 40K, as Magpie suggests at least with this style of allies, I wouldn't need to use it to play a game, and not using it, wouldn't necesarily cut down the number of games I might be able to play.

If allies are coming to 40k again, the WFB system would be the form I would expect it to take.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
In order to increase sales GW have roughly two options: sell more to existing customers or attract new customers.

I would have thought that a formal set of rules for adding allies would be a no-brainer way for GW to attempt the first of those two - sell more to existing customers.

Adding allied units to an existing army is a perfect stepping stone towards building a second army, as you can start with just one unit (or perhaps one unit and one character), and still get to play "normal" sized games as you expand your new force.

To be honest, it's the sort of omission that I find frankly bizarre, which is perhaps explicable by the fact that I've never played in a tournament, so I don't accept the premise that the most important function of the ruleset is to provide a balanced set of rules for tournament play.
 

·
Heresy Online's Pet Furby
Joined
·
8,723 Posts
How does the WFB allies system work in a nutshell? :)
 

·
I Piss in your Cheerios
Joined
·
7,370 Posts
I honestly dont think that "cheese" gamers, or their counterparts, the flexible users of allies, will count for much when considering when, if, or how allies might be added. Since when did GW add or remove a major game mechanic because the players loved/hated it?
Have you HEARD of the Starcannon? It went from an awesome Marine-killer to the piece of shit it is today, because of the years of bitching and whining by Marine players that their precious heroes were dying like cattle to Eldar's thousands of years older technology.

As for
misfratz said:
I don't accept the premise that the most important function of the ruleset is to provide a balanced set of rules for tournament play.
Balanced rules are to the benefit of all. Balanced rules stop dickheads ruining the fun of other people - tournament organisers can always rebalance the game better for their events if truly required - pick-up games have to deal with whatever shit gets printed in the BRB...it should therefore be GW's priority to ensure rules are fair for people who have no recourse to other rules, eg, casual players.
 

·
Critique for da CriticGod
Joined
·
3,351 Posts
On your point about starcannons, I can't speak to GW's thought process but they were pretty broken. The problem wasn't that they killed marines so well, it was the cost to do it. If I recall, starcannons cost about the same as a heavy bolter, with the same number of shots, and higher strength and Ap value. They were about as balanced as CSM blood letters were under the last chaos codex. For 1 point more than an assault marine I got a unit who was stronger, had better saves, had power weapons, and could be summoned and charge in the same turn. The closest comparable unit was lightning law assault terminators, and they cost almost twice as much, and couldn't charge from deep striking.

On your second point, I couldn't agree more. A well written, well edited, well referenced, and well balanced rule set is in the best interest of GW and of the entire player base. How could it be in anyone's best interest to produce an inferior game? The only possible argument against balance is the supposition that a spiraling system of codex creep leads long time power gamers to buy a new army every year or every other year. However that undermines the community and the other gamers who want an opportunity to compete fairly and improve their armies to do so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,007 Posts
Anyone have a link to the pic of the rule book cover?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
Have you HEARD of the Starcannon? It went from an awesome Marine-killer to the piece of shit it is today, because of the years of bitching and whining by Marine players that their precious heroes were dying like cattle to Eldar's thousands of years older technology.
When I said game mechanic, I meant something more broad than just an individual weapon from one codex. Something like overwatch, or consolidation into combat (and, indeed, allies). These were primarily removed because that was the direction the devs wanted to take the system, not because we either liked or disliked them.

(And lets be honest about it, did GW change the starcannon because we were whining about it, or because it was broken?)

Balanced rules are to the benefit of all. Balanced rules stop dickheads ruining the fun of other people - tournament organisers can always rebalance the game better for their events if truly required - pick-up games have to deal with whatever shit gets printed in the BRB...it should therefore be GW's priority to ensure rules are fair for people who have no recourse to other rules, eg, casual players.
This I really couldn't agree more with. A fine point, well made. :victory:

@Misfratz, I do agree with your wide description of how GW could increase sales, but I would say that most of us have one or two (sometimes more) main armies. Which would you be likely to buy first: a new, fresh cool unit for your main army, or an untried but interesting option from another codex? I think most of us would choose the former, even if the second option held some novelty value.

@Tawa, The WFB allies is a broad gathering of all the armies into three groups, loosely defined as good, neutral and bad. You can ally with almost any other force, gaining benefits from members of your own group, and hinderences from the opposing group. There are some provisos and such, but thats it in a general sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,132 Posts
I for one actually like this rule. Always hated how when i shot a unit all the guys in the back died. Also TLOS can work with this rule.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #258 (Edited)
BoW just release some rumors on wound allocation:
http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/wound-allocation-works-6th-edition-40k/

You will have to allocate wounds to models closest to the unit that fired at you.
I'm curious how this pays out with a large number of wounds. Do they mean that wounds have to be allocated starting from the closest models, or only on the closest models? If its the latter it'd make foot sloggers more resiliant as they'd only have to worry about losing a couple models at a time (even more so if you can abuse that by keeping 1 lone model ahead of the rest), but if it's the first that'd be a lot more fair to both sides I think (though it makes my expensive Heavy Flamers a lot less good since they'd be forced to take saves every turn then :(). Since they only showed 3 wounds but had 6 models it's hard to know exactly where this is going since the example wasn't complete. How will the possible new rule handle situations where the unit takes more wounds than there are models for example? Do you just loop back around and start from the front again?

Anyways, good find. I've added your post to the front page with the link and all. Nice find!

I find that hard to believe as it sounds like a step back to earlier editions. It seems like GW has favored TLOS over shooting at closest models.
It's just wound allocation not target priority. And it makes sense (unless you've got a sniper rifle) that you'd be shooting at the nearest models first when shooting at a given unit. You're still shooting at a given unit, you're just wounding the ones nearest to you TLOS style (I assume at least).

Of course I'm just guessing and can be totally wrong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #260
That would make the shoot-then-charge option less favoured. You'd shoot yourself out of charge range. Which I wouldn't be against...
True, but I think in turn we'd see models setting up the charge closer to enemy models when they can (like 2-3" close) to prevent this problem. And shooting yourself out of charge range (when your looking at just being in at 6" or even 5") happens now, it's just something we have to plan around and for.
 
241 - 260 of 841 Posts
Top