# Wow, crazy amount of hate for 6th Edition...



## aranelthemithra (Nov 1, 2011)

So much hate for something that must surely have had no time to establish it's impact on the meta game of the average 40Ker. 

This is mostly, I understand, because many people don't like change. 

Partially it could be that some of the changes really weren't a good idea. Others still just don't like GW anymore. I can assure you that Privateer Press and other companies are just as interested in getting your money and offer not much better to their customer base. 

Lets approach 6th edition with clear heads and evaluate the edition on it's own merits and how the changes impact veteran players, elite players, casual players and new players. 

*Allies*

From a casual player perspective, absolutely nothing could be better for the 40K world than the addition of allies. 

While many of you see a money grab from GW, many casual players see more value coming from their collections. They may have bounced between a couple of different armies, sampling them and being stuck with non-competitive limited selections which lead to those armies sitting in the box while the one viable list they have is all they carry around with them. 

Allies allow for those players to take some of their favourite models, dust them off and combine them with more viable armies in order to get the most use out of their collection. 

The elite player doesn't see cost as much of a barrier to their success. They have already invested what it takes to have the best Grey Knight list, or DE list, or BA list. When it is determined what the best list is with allies available, they will simply buy that next. 

The veteran player often has many armies or fragments thereof. When they played second edition, they had their harlequins and eldar. When they played fourth, they went with Chaos. Fifth? Dark Eldar and Necrons, or Space wolves and blood angels... whatever. Veterans may have many issues with the changes, but utilizing more of their collection surely can't be one of them. 

New players. Is there anything worse than seeing some models from a different army you wish you could use, but you became committed to a different list? 

From a completely strategic position - you often hear that army A can't compete because they can't handle tactic B. Dark Eldar are a prime example here. 

Indeed, on this very message board you will note that many will say that Dark Eldar gut punched in the gut by the rule changes. Necessity is the driver of innovation. Dark Eldar can now ally with Eldar. These space elves do a fantastic job of complementing each other, filling several of the weaknesses that each may have. Will this lead to a hybrid list which will allow DE and Eldar to prosper under the new rule set? Only time, creativity and an observation of the meta can tell. 

*Moving on...*

Forget the past. Take each and every rule (as I did with allies) and evaluate it on it's own merit and you will see that moving to a far more tactical, far more strategic game, while disenfranchising a few that are set in their ways, will shake up everything and that, my friends is not a bad thing. 

It will cost you as much or as little as you wish to invest - and the less you want to invest, the smarter, more creative you will become with what you own. I am already scratching my head trying to figure out which allies, weapons, fortifications and tactics will work the best for the models I have. And honestly, I haven't come to a conclusion, but I do know that whatever I come up with, it will completely change how I play an army I have played on and off for 23 years.


----------



## Sakura_ninja (Apr 29, 2012)

Nothing wrong with none retarded allies, and most of the hate is eldar, sisters and nids (though in much lower amounts than usual) players just being dumb and hating the fact they might now have to diversify and use tactics to win games while limiting themselves as much as possible while blasting themselves in the foot with bazookas


----------



## aranelthemithra (Nov 1, 2011)

Sakura_ninja said:


> Nothing wrong with none retarded allies, and most of the hate is eldar, sisters and nids (though in much lower amounts than usual) players just being dumb and hating the fact they might now have to diversify and use tactics to win games while limiting themselves as much as possible while blasting themselves in the foot with bazookas


What I like is that you get to completely change how your army chooses to operate based on which allies you pick. IG with Space wolves... interesting. Not sure what the result is, but ... interesting. 

As I mentioned, Dark Eldar and Eldar. 

Necrons and Grey Knights? 

Just fascinating combinations.


----------



## Sakura_ninja (Apr 29, 2012)

Fascinating to some, personally I would kick a player in the balls for taking grey knights and necrons, because I'm a fluff player, and I don't care what BS a player pulls from his ass or what quotes he makes from matt dumbward, you get a kick in the balls...if I can find them


----------



## aranelthemithra (Nov 1, 2011)

Sakura_ninja said:


> Fascinating to some, personally I would kick a player in the balls for taking grey knights and necrons, because I'm a fluff player, and I don't care what BS a player pulls from his ass or what quotes he makes from matt dumbward, you get a kick in the balls...if I can find them


The cheezy nature of grey knights/necrons can't be denied - it's backing two winning horses if you ask me, especially if it's the knights in the ally spot with Draigo. How many paladins is available at that point?


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Sakura_ninja said:


> Fascinating to some, personally I would kick a player in the balls for taking grey knights and necrons, because I'm a fluff player, and I don't care what BS a player pulls from his ass or what quotes he makes from matt dumbward, you get a kick in the balls...if I can find them


And if they had some good fluff to back up why these allies of convenience are fighting together? Would you still make that claim or be content?

I personally love the whole allies thing. It opens up a number of possibilities, while maintaining its own limits. (I E having stuff make sense and/or meshing well as much as possible.)

I just remade my old Iron Hand list, and jumped at the idea of taking a detachment of guard allies. That the allies chart is so limiting, and that I need to make sacrifices to my list as was, that helped to even out the choices.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Sakura_ninja said:


> Nothing wrong with none retarded allies, and most of the hate is eldar, sisters and nids (though in much lower amounts than usual) players just being dumb and hating the fact they might now have to diversify and use tactics to win games while limiting themselves as much as possible while blasting themselves in the foot with bazookas


List building isn't tactics. Tactics is described as follows:


> tac·tics
> 1. (usually used with a singular verb) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them battle
> 2. (used with a plural) the maneuvers themselves.
> 3. ( used with a singular verb ) any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success.


What you're describing is something different, namely Strategy (emphasis mine):


> strat·e·gy
> 1 Also,strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in *planning* and directing large military movements and operations


When you sit down and build a list you're doing so with a paticular strategy and are incorporating tools to that plan. When you're actually playing you employ tactics in how you move and position things to better bring about your strategy.

Long story short: strategy is the plan (in wargaming this involves the list), tactics is how you do it (actually playing the list). 

English lessons aside: trolling the rest of us for thinking differently than you doesn't make a valid point. Infact it shows how wrong you actually are.

You said you like to play models based how they look rather than any other value. Here's my problem with you prattling on about how those of us who like playing things a certian way are wrong: you put a personal value on a paticular thing over other things based on looks. Others do it based on math, or based on being comfortable in how those things perform.

By telling other people that they can't do the same (picking units they like over others) because they're wrong or stupid and that they need to abandon these things is the same as telling them to not be like you. To not do the things that they enjoy. And in addition to make you a troll it makes you a hypocrite. And hypocrites have no valid say in anything.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

I don't hate 6th in fact I am enjoying it so far, but I have to admit some changes left a bad taste in my mouth when in my first 4-5 games of it.

-Kharn and typhus getting power axes.
-CSM's and daemons not being able to share icons to assist the idiotic randomness of the daemons codex. (Daemons HQ's also can't join CSM units and besides epidemis and kyros have no real rule sharing or other such advantages).
-While the other army I play necrons got multiple boasts in both the BRB and the FaQ (Glad for it but was sure a WTF moment)

Now I will get over these as I have already found out how to exploit 6th's changes to horrific effect (Chosen with 5 flamers and melta bombs, killed 600pts of tyranids last game), but still wasn't expecting my CSM book to get so many negative hits. Well at least I can be a cheap bastard and take said necron units in my CSM army (What daemons? never heard of em my marines summon robot zombies to help them).


----------



## aranelthemithra (Nov 1, 2011)

I think differentiating between tactics and strategy when it comes to building your list is a bit disingenuous. 

The inclusion of an ally force would be based on the tactics they bring to the fight. The overall concept that merges the new tactical options of the allies with the tactical options of the main force is highly strategic. 

As much as you can post definitions to shame what you see to be a troll in to submission, which is your right I suppose, it's really a bit petty when discussing lists specifically. Normally, you would in real life be leveraging resources - in 40K you are first picking all your resources based on the tactics they would open up to you. Chicken/egg thing I guess. Either way... your point regarding telling people how to play the game, or pick their forces, are valid and I think that a major part of my initial post was really saying that a new edition of the rules is specifically intended to make the player base uncomfortable as they seek to remove inertia and force the game to evolve and step forward. 

That alone is not enough to brand such a change a bad thing.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

aranelthemithra said:


> I think differentiating between tactics and strategy when it comes to building your list is a bit disingenuous.
> 
> The inclusion of an ally force would be based on the tactics they bring to the fight. The overall concept that merges the new tactical options of the allies with the tactical options of the main force is highly strategic.
> 
> ...


The strategy/tactics thing is just something that bugs me. One is how you plan your army, the other is how you play it. They're inter-related sure, but not interchangable.

As for change, I don't hate change. I like pretty much everything 6th offers. I just don't like how my 5th Edition magazine dex interacts with those rules. :wink:

I'm actually looking at other armies to see what I like out of the armies and want to play right now. New edition, new army (at least until Sisters get their update sometime in the next decade or so). I just don't like being told "you're dumb and you're doing it wrong!" because I don't want to put allies into my Sister's army.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

aranelthemithra said:


> Forget the past. Take each and every rule (as I did with allies) and evaluate it on it's own merit and you will see that moving to a far more tactical, far more strategic game, while disenfranchising a few that are set in their ways, will shake up everything and that, my friends is not a bad thing.


Nice to see a reasoned, common sense approach. I haven't got my new rule book yet, but even those who do have theirs can't have played too many games so far. I think it'll be a while before the full impact of the new rules become apparent. From what I've read so far though, I'm liking the idea of taking a squad of jump pack DC with my SWs.


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

I'm incredibly excited about the new Allies options, for the reasons mentioned above. While I can still invest most of my time and money into my two big armies, now I can buy all of the other goodies I want without the fear of never fielding them.

Thinking about making an Ork army? Buy some allied units and try them out on the table to figure out how it'll work before you pump serious bucks into it. If you decide you don't like them, then you've only blown money on 2-3 boxed sets and can shift your sights elsewhere.

Very, very excited


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I have to say I am really excited by all of the new opportunities that the 6th ed brings, the allies particularly.

I play Gk and it is great fun coming up with a plausible explanation for each team up.

E.g. Necron : Adpetus Machinus research allows Nercon units to be regrogrammed/enslaved to the will of the Inquisition, just like the AM boffins did for the assassins and the C'tan phase sword. As they are completely immune to the advances of Deamons they are used extensively by GK units.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Sakura_ninja said:


> That was a very long and detailed post...shame I lost interest before the end of the first sentence and didn't actually read any of it


And that is why you fail.

Anyways, to actually mention something I actually really like about the new edition - rapid fire weapons just got awesome.

With an improved threat range and the ability to move and shoot without penalty, not only did the Venerable Bolter get better, but so did the Humble Lasgun and the Pulse Rifle (I couldn't think of an adjective for it. Boxy maybe?). I think this should result in more mobile armies that don't just plunk themselves down into corners or suicide themselves at close range in hopes of doing damage.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

The allies give me an excuse to get more armies, I like this. I would be upset if I was a nids player, totally agree they should have been given something. I can use the army I have and with pretty much a basic battleforce field and test/play another army. It gives me an idea of what I would like about each army. 

The changes to shooting and whatnot seem cool, there will be lots of arguments to start with but then everyone will settle down.

Fortifications gives me an excuse to buy some of the GW stuff I liked, it also gives me an excuse to build my own shit.

GW obviously has done this to increase their profits and I find it smart and a nice thing. I have no issues since they did nothing to hamper the actual fun of the game. They have just given players a nudge to open their wallets more.


----------



## aranelthemithra (Nov 1, 2011)

Fear will keep the local systems in line. 

Sorry, for some reason I could only think of a star wars quote in response to the silly bickering.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Change is bad for people, it makes them have to think outside of the box they find comfortable.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

People will always find a way to exploit and broke a edition all that really changes is how one goes about it. However its always nice to change up the flavor of cheese. I was getting sick of Limburger.


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

A radical Ordo Xenos Inquisitor, Invers Danforth, sought the tomb world of Sothot, Herald of the Black Judge. Having seen a shard of the Judge devour a platoon of guardsmen, this Inquisitor was a changed man; the Emperor was no god. These C'tan were living divinity and ancient beyond mortal imagining. True Gods.
Upon meeting Sothot, Inquisitor Danforth pledged his and his Stormtrooper's allegiance to the Necron Lord, and his worship to the Star Gods. 
Sothot, showing no more interest than raising a single finger, gifted the Inquisitor and his men with Mindshackle Scarabs. 
A little background for why i'm taking GK Henchmen with my Necrons. If you can find my balls, Sakura, i'll take that kick.


----------



## King Gary (Aug 13, 2009)

Haven't played a game yet unfortunately, so just speculating on concepts.

I like the addition of proper fliers in the game, though I realise that potentially the rules might not be as slick as they could be, as it is only the first edition of 40k to have them. It just makes so much sense to include the extra, 3rd dimension. Current military forces make extensive use of air support, what would change in 38 000 years?

The whole characters thing is pretty funky too, I like that my SM sergeants are no longer simply slightly choppier with added Ld, the chance that they'll turn into proper leaders on the board, making their shots count is just great.

On that note, I'm happier with the wound allocation system too, 5th was ok for this but the new system fits in with with GW's efforts to make "the battle you see is the battle you're having" central to the gaming experience (actual line of sight rule, weird vehicle firing arcs anyone?). For me, the old wound allocation system just never sat right with the rest of the gaming experience, in 6th, it actually makes sense, it's not just a set of rules.

My one gripe might be that my regular opponent never bothered to learn 5th (every game he tries to get me to make a leadership test when I loose half my army, like the Necromunda bottle test), I doubt he'll bother with 6th either so I'm gonna have to keep a lot of rules in mind while playing! :biggrin:


----------



## SavageConvoy (Sep 21, 2011)

My only complaint about allies is that not all armies are made equal. Stacking two high end armies together, no matter how fluffy or well painted, will not bode well for the mono army or army of two bottom tier codecs. If all the armies were up to date and balanced, then balanced with each other rather than just cramming 1/3 of Guard into your Space Marine army.

I know that it gives you the chance to fix shortcomings, to add some color, to give you more diversity.

But in a system thats as we'll balanced as a Jenga set played by two escaped mental patients off their meds, is it really doing any good? Does this fix the imbalance or just make it worse. Can you honestly say it fixes anything. Yes I'm happy you get to combine your armies. Good for you that you have motivation to start collecting another faction. 
I don't support it though. It offers too much to too few. Its a sign that GW are proud of their slow update cycle. Why even bother with armies anymore? Just make a bunch of models and give everyone access to them? Because I'm sure we are going to see the same lists over and over again anyways. 

Call me disgruntled, call me stubborn, and call me judgemental. Whatever you like. But I don't like this one bit, and I have my reasons for that.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

They will most likely update DA, BT, CSM, Eldar, and Tau in next year or so. When they do they will be based off the 6th rules. These armies will become the new 'strong armies everyone wants to ally with'.


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

I really don't think it's going to be that bad though. I usually play 1500 point games. Just to add Coteaz and one henchmen Squad, I'm costing 300 some points. If I want to have them in a chimera it's up another notch, and that's just my compulsory HQ and troop Ally. This unit might be another powerful HQ and troop unit, but they can't interact with the rest of my army (Which is now down to 1100 points if I don't want to throw a little more Henchmen in there.) To top it off, they're humans with 5+ saves and shitty aim in a Necron army. How can anyone grumble and groan about powergaming two top tier codecies? Sure, other people might throw in Draigo and Paladins to Blood Angels or whatever cheesy combo the internet will think of, but would anyone refuse a game because they might have a rougher go of it? I am dreading and excited to see what my opponent does with his elven kind, although I have a feeling it's going to be Farseer/Blastborn combos or something. Frikkin elves.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Yah, to play allies you have to shave away your army points and many of the competitive lists were already shaved to the extreme. Even my casual lists I play are going to have to be trimmed to fit just the basic ally requirements in. I just like the fact that I can try out other codexes now without buying 1500 pts plus of them.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

This is the thing I don't understand baout the ally complaint. Its not like your getting them free. They cost points and that means points from your regular list. There are few powerful combos. Somebody mentioned plague marines with epidurmus, meaning the plague marines getting a powerful FnP roll that can only be negated by strength 10 weapons.

As for me, I quite like that there is more complexity to the rules than in 5th. I can see there will be more shooting, but if you can get into hand to hand certain unit types will be devastating.


----------



## Purge the Heretic (Jul 9, 2009)

As a Sisters player:

Yes, how dare I as a player of a xenophobic army of insular and fanatical zealots take exception to partnering with any army not as rightous and pure as my own. 

To those imperial armies who choose to ally with psykers xenos mutants rebels and demons I say:

"Burn Heretics Burn!" :laugh:

I may occasionally allow certain legions of Imperial Guard some small modicum of trust, or fight alongside a Chapter of the Adeptus Astartes...unless it becomes necessary to purge their heretical lack of faith in the god-emperor, but for the most part I can only trust my sisters. 

LOL.


----------



## El Mariachi (Jun 22, 2008)

To the OP: I wouldn't worry about it too much. This happens with every edition change although I have to say I think I've seen more positive posts across forums about this edition than any other.

I've managed to play a few games now and personally I think 40k is finally at the level I want it to be. Personally I'll no longer be making 'advanced rulesets' with my gaming group in order to extract some fun out of the game!


----------



## theluc (Jan 2, 2008)

i do have to admit there is some annoyance here in there but overall its a okay book, nothing more. in my mind it did not get better or worse, it< just a roll back to 2nd edition style of play.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Sakura_ninja said:


> Fascinating to some, personally I would kick a player in the balls for taking grey knights and necrons, because I'm a fluff player, and I don't care what BS a player pulls from his ass or what quotes he makes from matt dumbward, you get a kick in the balls...if I can find them





aranelthemithra said:


> The cheezy nature of grey knights/necrons can't be denied - it's backing two winning horses if you ask me, especially if it's the knights in the ally spot with Draigo. How many paladins is available at that point?


So, where exactly do you think that Grey Knights get their Tesseract Labyrinths from?

I'll probably add a contingent of Tzeentchi Daemons to my CSM, despite being Undivided. I just tend to like magic. But I'll be surprised if nobody complains about Termi-fate-ors, which as you can guess from the name, is an army maxed on Chaos Terminators and 2 small units of Thousand Sons with Fateweaver and Pink Horrors.

Midnight


----------



## RedThirstWill Destroy (Nov 10, 2011)

The last time I played was 2nd Edition and back then I only played as it was fun, now with these new rules (which i must say i for one like), I'm quite looking forward to getting my army finished and having a game. See where my strengths and weekness are regroup and bolster or strip my force acordingly.

I don't mind change as it tests people more, I'm assuming that some of the [power players from 5th wont like 6th because they'll have to re-write there armies.

I personaly don't plan on running the same army twice, i like to mix things up a bit and get people guessing, IMO there's no better stratergy than your opo not having a clue what too expect (thats with everything i do)


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

GK/Necrons..... New breed of Necrons, call them selves the Borg, resistance is futile. 

There is quite easy ways to bullshit spin anything you want since the whole game is about making up your own shit for fun. The 'fluff' changes every ruleset so fuck it, make your own fluff and model your army the way you want.

I have been doing a non traditional color theme for my SW and now I will take it to another level. It is a Nordic based army and any alleys are just another branch of the world tree supplying troops to the cause of Odin.

This rage and bullshit whimpering about the sacred fluff is stupid. The books are full of GW urging people to make their own stories. To create a army and have it 'counts as' codex x. 

Yes there is a group of people that do not care about fluff, who cares. If you want to build a narrative and only play in that narrative do so. Nothing is stopping you, and that way of play is no worse or better than competitive playing.


----------



## Zetronus (May 9, 2012)

I have to admit, I am quite excited about the Allies feature of the new rules - while some may find it unpalatable for their daily fluff requirements, I for one see a lot of potential..

Chaos - Sisters of Battle - just the thought of them brings ooodles of ideas for conversion and some rather saucy models 


I agree completely with what *scscofield* and others have said, you can create YOUR army with your own fluff and use the codices simply as a guide to points and stats.

So now I am awaiting my 6th ed hard back from Weyland... so I must ask the following Questions

1. Is there a limit to how many Allies an army can have ... 1, 2 or more?
2. Could I run two different chapters with say Ultrasmurf Units and BA units - without needing extra HQ?

My main point with 2 is that I want to run a couple of Furioso Dreaddies with 2x CC & HF


Ooohh... I could see Necron and Traitor Iron Hands SM working together... that would be awesome... one wants to be completely machine the other pained by losing their bodies.... yeah... that could lead to a lot of really coool fluff!


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

Only issues I have are the fact that people will abuse Allies, and the fact that Power Weapons are now all messed up (IMO).

Otherwise I'm really looking forward to my 6th ed games. Suck on those Hull Points, mech lists! :biggrin:


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Zetronus said:


> 1. Is there a limit to how many Allies an army can have ... 1, 2 or more?
> 2. Could I run two different chapters with say Ultrasmurf Units and BA units - without needing extra HQ?


It is as follows:
0-1999 pts
Your main codex FoC 1-2hq, 2-6troop, 0-3elite, 0-3fa, 0-3hs
Your ally FoC 1hq, 1-2troop, 0-1elite, 0-1fa, 0-1hs
One Fortification
2k+ 
You can repeat the above with the same codex choices in main and ally for a total of two FoCs (2primary, 2ally, 2fortifications) You are still required to do the 1hq, 2 troop main/1hq, 1troop ally for the second FoC for a total of 2hq, 4 troops man and 2hq 2 troops ally required.


Edit: Can only do the main codex and one ally, and you can not ally with yourself.


----------



## Sakura_ninja (Apr 29, 2012)

spanner94ezekiel said:


> Only issues I have are the fact that people will abuse Allies


This, people can bullshit as much as they like about fluff this fluff that, there is only 1 reason people would do dumb stuff like crons and knights, or bandwagon army x+y, only 1 reason.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I dunno, GK and Necrons sounds dubious but the idea that they were a secret group led by an Inquisitor on a vermilion-level mission to trade for Tesseract Labyrinths is quite cool, IMHO. Obviously, someone doesn't want GK to get any Tesseract Labyrinths (or Eldar could want the Necrons to keep them to capture more bits of C'tan). 

This justifies them fighting any race - Necrons promised Orks the Labyrinths, Chaos don't want GK to get even more anti-daemon weapons, Eldar want Necrons to keep enslaving C'tan and thus keep the Tesseracts, Tyranids just want to eat stuff and so the Necrons and Grey Knights join to fight them off (perhaps while the Inquisitor runs off with his new Labyrinth), Dark Eldar want the technology for their own to see if they can capture souls in them 'for emergencies' (like Guard would keep hip-flasks of sacra or amasec), and other Imperial forces are disgusted by the fraternising with xenos that they see before them.

Obviously works better with Inquisitorial-themed lists rather than the Puritanical-Grey-Knight ones (or Purifier Brotherhoods).

But I don't see much else working.

Midnight


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

MidnightSun said:


> I dunno, GK and Necrons sounds dubious but the idea that they were a secret group led by an Inquisitor on a vermilion-level mission to trade for Tesseract Labyrinths is quite cool, IMHO. Obviously, someone doesn't want GK to get any Tesseract Labyrinths (or Eldar could want the Necrons to keep them to capture more bits of C'tan).
> 
> This justifies them fighting any race - Necrons promised Orks the Labyrinths, Chaos don't want GK to get even more anti-daemon weapons, Eldar want Necrons to keep enslaving C'tan and thus keep the Tesseracts, Tyranids just want to eat stuff and so the Necrons and Grey Knights join to fight them off (perhaps while the Inquisitor runs off with his new Labyrinth), Dark Eldar want the technology for their own to see if they can capture souls in them 'for emergencies' (like Guard would keep hip-flasks of sacra or amasec), and other Imperial forces are disgusted by the fraternising with xenos that they see before them.
> 
> ...


"Count As Adeptus Mechanicus".


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

The only people that are going to bother playing that combo are people who want to create something unique fluff wise. 'Competitive' players are not going to play any of the unholy alliances so anyone all up in arms over this needs to get over it. A 'Competitive' player is not going to risk having units sit and pick their noses for a whole turn because the units got to close. 

Also when it comes down to it so fucking what if they shit all over the fluff. It is their army of plastic army men and if you don't like that don't play them. Being up in arms and crying on the internets is not going to change the fact it will happen now. The company has made a decision to sell models and let people do whatever the fuck they like as long as it sells more models they will rape the fluff as much as possible. The fluff is only there at this point to give them a blurb on the back of boxes. The fact it has been shit on so much in the last decade should be proof that GW cares more for sales than warm and fuzzy story lines.

The fluff states that Necrons and BA have worked together. If people cry too much about it, the next codex release will have every single one of those unholy alliances featured in it's 'fluff' section. 




TLDR: The game is whatever you make of it, nothing is set in stone in terms of fluff or lore. It hasn't been for years.


----------



## darknightdrako (Mar 26, 2010)

I'm still reading the book and so far I am enjoying it. The only thing I do not like though is the character challenges and penalizing when you refuse to fight.


----------



## DecrepitDragon (Aug 2, 2011)

I have to say that I'm a little confused as to why people are saying that some ally combinations are not fluff canon.

I, personally, have serious reservations about the Allies rules, but only from a "power" build perspective. Given time, if not already, someone is going to come up with a combination that will be grossly over-powered, compared to anything we've seen before.

Now I realise that Player A, henceforth, "Bob", will come up with combo "A", and that after a few games, or forum searches, Player B, henceforth "Dave", creates combo "B" to counter it. Occasionally, one or the other, Bob or Dave, is going to get tabled in two, and then return the favour next game.

Basically, Bob and Dave continue this cycle, till most derivatives of combo A, or B, or indeed C, D, and so on, have been used - essentially restoring balance to their gaming world because its the same cycle power gamers, or tourney players ( in fact, most players ) are already using.

I personally dislike the "power gamer" mentality these days, but hey, its your game, play it how you like.

Fluff however is a hell of a lot more esoteric and ephemeral. What we all know of fluff canon at the moment, is so closely linked to major campaigns, or matters of galactic or racial importance, that there is a hell of a lot of wriggle room between the lines of canon, that pretty much anything goes.

We may not be actively writing the 40K background, but if the stuff that has been written, and is canon, tickles your fluff spot, then go for it.

If you want to make up some of your own fluff for why race A would ally with race B, then hey, have a ball - go for it, and let the nay sayers suck on your creative juices, because there isn't a damn thing they can do about it, as long as its within the rules. And if its not, get their permission first, I hear sucking creative juices is illegal in some countries without consent. :shok:


----------



## Troublehalf (Aug 6, 2010)

See, I just laugh at some of them. I didn't know, for example, that Dark Eldar and Eldar are still close. According to the Allies section, they are BattleBros. I was like, really? But I understand fluff wise.

SoB are only Bro's with IG? And are AoC with SM? What? I think Black Templar's are the blue one.... can't remember the name. That does not make any sense.... I don't get why the Imperium Armies don't count each other as Bro's... That's my only complaint. Everything else makes sense.... I mean, all Allies can be justified (unless they are Red).... Imperial Guard pay Ork's to help fight Tyranids or Necrons or whatever. Necrons team up with Tau to defeat Eldar Pirates or Dark Eldar raiders....

You also have to remember, say a BA army teams up with Orks, they defeat, let's say, the Tyranids. It doesn't have to stop there, the BA could fight the Orks! Or leave and nuke them or whatever.

Think of the awesome games it could make... I mean campaign games!

Space Marines land to help IG defeat Orks. You do a few games like that. Then Tyranids arrive (3rd or 4th player!) The SM, IG and Orks are weak from fighting and decide to team up. Campaign games go on, depending on results.... A Tyranid win results in less points for SM, IG and Orks next round but allow free fortification placements... Or a SM, IG and Ork win results in Tyranids sending more down, so more points for them. Let's say after loads of battles, the Tyranids are driven off, you could then use the surviving models of the final battle, say Orks, SM and IG to then fight each other, or do a IC fight or agree to allow both armies to retreat and end the game or do a massive battle at the end. Then, depending on the result, you could do a roll off to see what happens in the narrative, if the SM win's you do a D6 roll.

1-2: Orks defeated and allowed to retreat for their help against Tyranids.
3-4: Orks are defeated but the battle for the system isn't over.
5-6: Orks retreat but are subsequently bombarded by Orbital Strikes, wiping them out.

So on, so forth. I think this is cool, no competitive player will be using armies that don't trust each other anyway, too dangerous. Unless, you know, there is a special tournament where you are forced to player with a blue Ally. 

Fluff wise, GK are all over the place. In WD there is a battle report, a narrative, of the Necrons vs Space Marines/Space Wolves/Grey Knights/Imperial Guard/Eldar.... In one fight it's Necrons vs SW + IG + GK, all the Grey Knights in the battle are killed, but the SW + IG end up winning. According to the wonderful Matt Ward, the Grey Knights are some uber secret force which murders any surviving IG, no matter how good they were, and mind wipe SM...... But, how can they if they are all dead? Surely the survivors of the other armies will remember? What if the army with the GK + Allies is defeated? Won't the enemy now know of it's existence? Isn't this fluff totally rubbish, crap and pointless for the whole Ally thing anyway? Meaning that nobody will want to use them with others if fluff is a part of their game.


----------



## King Gary (Aug 13, 2009)

Gotta agree with the two previous posts in principle, given about 2 minutes thought I'm pretty sure I could come up with a conceivable excuse/reason for any two armies turning up on the same battlefield on the same side, and I don't put that down to anything more than the whole 40k fluff being intentionally open, there are enough factors built into the 40k universe for anything to be possible imo. War is being fought across a million worlds. Communications and reinforcements can take months, years (or on occasion they don't) arrive. You have incredibly charismatic leaders in charge, you've got potential for corruption from chaos or hive minds. You've even got areas of mutual interest between races, (fight a hard battle now, save your self a bloodier war later). Given all those circumstances, can anyone say 100% that some ally combination wouldn't happen?

To me, it looks like the game developers have possibly identified certain power combinations, or balance issues and tried to restrict those, more than restricting things from the fluff side of things. I'm not saying that this is what's happened for certain, but after 25 years of creating the 40k universe where the possibilities for conflict are endless, why would they start imposing restrictions now?
What I do wonder about is the total lack of allies for Tyranids, here's hoping for some sort of amendment, possibly a WD mini codex for genestealer cults or some re-working of the synapse rule (any allies allowed but units MUST remain in synapse range).


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

I've now read though my legitimate copy™ (I know it was because it had legitimate written on it) of the rulebook and I have to say I'm pretty impressed with the rules as they are. It seems pretty well written and laid out, they can learn. 

Psychic Powers are more random but must easier to cast.

Vehicles are both tougher and more fragile at the same time which is a nice balance. 

Some nice changes. Be interesting to see how they play out in a game, Shining Spears might be worthwhile now with a basic 4+ Jink and Hammer of Wrath.


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

I don't hate it per se. I just think some key aspects were very poorly handled. Both overwatch AND the outflank assault ban were excessive in my opinion. Or maybe you shouldn't get to pile in after you overwatch; People say it makes the game more strategic, but it's just an added hazard to make CC less rewarding for most armies.

The allies table (not the concept) and the warlord traits also smell of lazy design, IMO.

But it'll happen. I'm lucky that my gaming group is very casual and avoids WAAC lists. I do feel for the poor nid player who'll be facing grinning GK/IG armies across the table, though.



aranelthemithra said:


> Forget the past. Take each and every rule (as I did with allies) and evaluate it on it's own merit and you will see that moving to a far more tactical, far more strategic game, while disenfranchising a few that are set in their ways, will shake up everything and that, my friends is not a bad thing.


It's not that easy to forget the past when you have 40+ now-useless models hanging around to remind you. It's not my ase (only about 20 here...), but I can relate to people's frustration.

My club is expanding and getting some new players into the hobby. One had Nids as a first army. Spent a lot of cash and efforts ordering it, getting it through customs with the GW embargo, learned to paint quite well and when his army was almost fully painted an table-top worthy...it's crap now. 

What do I tell him? That his effort and investment was properly rewarded?


----------



## Voss (Jun 27, 2012)

I have no idea what happened to my post. Ah well.

Short version: I haven't actually seen a lot of hate, and as someone else with a long standing collection, I've found creating army lists is easier for the older armies- they can be brought up to date with minimal to no additional cash, while more recent armies seem to need a lot of additional toys.


----------



## Troublehalf (Aug 6, 2010)

Either way, the Allies come down to narratives. A narrative to make the allies work together... But remember, you can easily narrate the 'aftermath' of the battle. Or, you know, don't. You're not hurt either way by the Allies, it's just a suggestion, a framework. You are perfectly in your right to change them or whatever, but their chart is at least within their understanding of the fluff. GK are retarded fluff wise, so ignore them. Tyranids might have no Allies, but they have been so buffed by the new Psychic powers... Giving +D3A +D3I and Fleet to a Hive Tyrant? Yes please.

Anyway, you are forgetting one key and vital part of the entire Tyranid fluff. The Hive Fleet absorb biomass, learn from it and create new creatures to fight foes. So, imagine, for a second, that the Hive Fleet created a Mind Control virus/bug/spore or something, allowing armies to become "Mind Controlled" for a length of time. This could easily be used to justify a Alliance. You just keep the IG away from the 'Nids and stuff.... Or do the opposite, make it so they have to be within 8" or they break free from the Mind Control


----------



## Shas (May 6, 2012)

I just don't think the Tyranids can have allies. It's this line:

"There is no evidence shown in the fiction that Tyranids have language or civilization as understood by the protagonist civilizations native to the Milky Way".

To my mind they are hive mind and so utterly alien that opening a course of discussion leading to being allies is simply beyond them and "us" unlike all of the other races who can communicate, no matter how basically.


----------



## asianavatar (Aug 20, 2007)

Talking about allies, would it be cool in later codices where certain choices alters the allies chart. So for example, a genestealer HQ would allow you to take certain guard units, or taking an Inquisitor instead of Grandmaster makes certain allies brothers instead with all the benefits that come with it.


----------



## Troublehalf (Aug 6, 2010)

It's funny, cause in WHFB, Lizardmen have a human army under their command. They captured humans, took out their brains and now use them as warrior slaves. Same could apply to the Tyranids.... Or

Tyranids kill X foe, Tyranid spores infect X foe corpse, turning them into 'zombies' that fight against the foe, slowly dissolving into biomass for the fleet. Or something. Once again, I don't have a problem with it


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Shas said:


> I just don't think the Tyranids can have allies. It's this line:
> 
> "There is no evidence shown in the fiction that Tyranids have language or civilization as understood by the protagonist civilizations native to the Milky Way".
> 
> To my mind they are hive mind and so utterly alien that opening a course of discussion leading to being allies is simply beyond them and "us" unlike all of the other races who can communicate, no matter how basically.


Well that and the Tyranids have a nasty habit of reducing things into liquid soup they drink up and recycle into Tyranids. Being an ally to the Tyranids wouldn't last long and wouldn't have good consequences.

About the only ones who'd want to be Tyranid allies would be members of Genestealer cults and even then the Genestealers are known for getting the heck out of Dodge when a Hive Fleet is around. So apparently Tyranids don't even want to ally with Tyranids.


----------



## Zetronus (May 9, 2012)

I could see necrons allying with tyranids - theres no biomass to them and they live to exstinguish life - surely the Tyranids would be a welcome weapon in this juncture for them.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I don't recall this much whining in 2nd Edition; Tyranids couldn't ally with anybody either _and_ they didn't have access to Virus Outbreak (for the young 'uns, Virus Outbreak was a horrible, horrible strategy card, which were the old strategic assets but in normal games, and it spelt death for most infantry armies. Imagine a fairly powerful grenade dropped anywhere in your deployment. Anyone it kills deals the hit to anyone within D3". That's how it worked IIRC) . Even Genestealers could only ally (weakly) with Chaos.

Would people be happy if they brought back the Tyranid Effect tables?

Midnight


----------



## The Sturk (Feb 3, 2012)

Zetronus said:


> I could see necrons allying with tyranids - theres no biomass to them and they live to exstinguish life - surely the Tyranids would be a welcome weapon in this juncture for them.


Except that Necrons hate the Tyranids, as they are either:

1. Eating all life, removing the possibility of Necrons getting new bodies.

2. Eating all life, destroying the remains of their old Dynasties.


----------

