Absolutionis wrote:Play Black Templar and hate everyone? Eldar want to be your friend and bring some Xenos Witches!

Glorioski wrote:

Andy Chambers and Rick Priestley in the same sentence? Wtf? If anything Andy Chambers is the man responsible for the direction GW has gone in the last decade. Him and Priestley are complete opposite ends of the spectrum mate..

Palindrome wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

Andy Chambers and Rick Priestley in the same sentence? Wtf? If anything Andy Chambers is the man responsible for the direction GW has gone in the last decade. Him and Priestley are complete opposite ends of the spectrum mate..

Andy Chambers allegedly left GW due to the direction that GW went with 3rd ed. I very much doubt that he approves of the course that GW has set.

Palindrome wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

Andy Chambers and Rick Priestley in the same sentence? Wtf? If anything Andy Chambers is the man responsible for the direction GW has gone in the last decade. Him and Priestley are complete opposite ends of the spectrum mate..

Andy Chambers allegedly left GW due to the direction that GW went with 3rd ed. I very much doubt that he approves of the course that GW has set.

These 40K ally rules are clearly meant for one player to combine units from different armies in a single list

Glorioski wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

Andy Chambers and Rick Priestley in the same sentence? Wtf? If anything Andy Chambers is the man responsible for the direction GW has gone in the last decade. Him and Priestley are complete opposite ends of the spectrum mate..

Andy Chambers allegedly left GW due to the direction that GW went with 3rd ed. I very much doubt that he approves of the course that GW has set.

Andy Chambers got forced out. His whole mantra was to turn GW into more of a business. I'm sure he'd be very happy. Plus he left well after 3rd ed came out.

Reivax26 wrote:I guess that means that all the fluff in the Templar dex is pretty much useless now then since there were multiple references to them fighting along side the Sisters of Battle against Chaos. I do remember a story about a Cannoness, an Emperors Champ and someone else standing against a Bloodthirster in a volcano. Guess GW needs to just omit that from any further publications of the Templar dex until they get there new one where it is revealed that was all a hoax and the Cannoness was possessed by a rival Chaos God....

Glorioski wrote:Andy Chambers got forced out. His whole mantra was to turn GW into more of a business. I'm sure he'd be very happy. Plus he left well after 3rd ed came out.

Palindrome wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

Andy Chambers and Rick Priestley in the same sentence? Wtf? If anything Andy Chambers is the man responsible for the direction GW has gone in the last decade. Him and Priestley are complete opposite ends of the spectrum mate..

Andy Chambers allegedly left GW due to the direction that GW went with 3rd ed. I very much doubt that he approves of the course that GW has set.

Andy Chambers got forced out. His whole mantra was to turn GW into more of a business. I'm sure he'd be very happy. Plus he left well after 3rd ed came out.

Thats the exact opposite of what I remember happening, or at least what was supposed to have happened.

Altruizine wrote:Regarding stand and shoot/overwatch/snap fire paranoia versus assault armies, it would be cool if charging with grenades prevented the target from shooting at you.

Robbietobbie wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Robbietobbie wrote:If people use the possibility to write OP lists that's their fault for using that possibility in a way it wasn't intended to be used

I really do think that you should get the award for having posting the most inane thing in the entire thread thus far.

Inane because? People are blaming gw for writing a rule WAAC players can exploit to create even stronger list while these players will find the cheese anyway.. If you use the rules as they were intended i see no problem with the oppertunity to create a fluffy alliance. Hate the player, not the game

insaniak wrote:

Happygrunt wrote:While everyone complains about the rules, I am sitting her wondering how I am supposed to justify a $75 game book. I mean, seriously.

You can buy a new video game, which these days generally seems to get you around 8 to 10 hours of play time... Or you can buy a rulebook that will get you how many times more than that?

azazel the cat wrote:Okay... so the Necrons can ally with the Black Templars... I understand that ally =/= BFF, but I'm pretty sure the Necron codex mentions that at some point, Imotekh cut off Helbrecht's arms. So one way or another, I just don't understand how those two races are gonna fist-bump.

As has been mentioned, that's covered quite well by the Allies of Convenience set-up. There are all sorts of scenarios possible where two forces can find themselves with similar objectives without being BFFs.

English Assassin wrote:

Robbietobbie wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Robbietobbie wrote:If people use the possibility to write OP lists that's their fault for using that possibility in a way it wasn't intended to be used

I really do think that you should get the award for having posting the most inane thing in the entire thread thus far.

Inane because? People are blaming gw for writing a rule WAAC players can exploit to create even stronger list while these players will find the cheese anyway.. If you use the rules as they were intended i see no problem with the oppertunity to create a fluffy alliance. Hate the player, not the game

We're dealing with rules created by professionals (well, supposed professionals), who have (or should have) had the time to consider the consequences, intended and unintended, of every decision they make writing those rules. If we, the players, are expected to second-guess their intentions and to impose ill-defined limitations upon how we employ the rules they have been paid to write, and which we have paid to use, then those professionals really haven't done their jobs very well.

JohnnoM wrote:Dear god,the allies are up:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=§ion=&pIndex=0&aId=22400024a&start=1&multiPageMode=true

azazel the cat wrote:I'm all but drooling at the possibilities here, and I'm starting to think about how to turn extra Necron bits & pieces into a bizarre Big Mekk:

1x Big Mekk w/ KFF & Shokk Attack Gun (Silver Tide with a 5+ cover save!)
1x Harbinger of Eternity w/ Chronometron (suddenly that Shokk Attack Gun is not so terrible)
1x Harbinger of Transmogrification w/ Voltaic Staff (nobody assaults this walking Gauss battery)
1x Overlord w/ Phaeron + Rez Orb
20x Necron Warriors

This would potentially have 60 Guass shots to fire if rumours are true, a 5+ cover save, 4+ RP, and a potentially very nasty Shokk Attack Gun.

BladeWalker wrote:Are the people that are so irate the same people who have not played any 2v2 games? The crazy combos is what makes it fun!

(Just trying to lighten the mood, don't lynch me)

JohnnoM wrote:Dear god,the allies are up:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=§ion=&pIndex=0&aId=22400024a&start=1&multiPageMode=true

daedalus-templarius wrote:

JohnnoM wrote:Dear god,the allies are up:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=§ion=&pIndex=0&aId=22400024a&start=1&multiPageMode=true

GK allied with necrons you say... hmmmm.

Testify wrote:

English Assassin wrote:We're dealing with rules created by professionals (well, supposed professionals), who have (or should have) had the time to consider the consequences, intended and unintended, of every decision they make writing those rules. If we, the players, are expected to second-guess their intentions and to impose ill-defined limitations upon how we employ the rules they have been paid to write, and which we have paid to use, then those professionals really haven't done their jobs very well.

Then don't buy the rulebook. Carry on playing 5th.

Glorioski wrote: His whole mantra was to turn GW into more of a business. I'm sure he'd be very happy.

Just Dave wrote:Games down in price after a period of time (I personally very rarely buy a game upon release) ...

If that were true, then I would imagine the Eldar - one of the more 'reasonable' races IMHO - would surely be willing to ally with Necrons under the most dire circumstances?

Sidstyler wrote:

Glorioski wrote: His whole mantra was to turn GW into more of a business. I'm sure he'd be very happy.

And so GW supposedly kicked him out because...they didn't want to be more like a business? They didn't like the "make rules to sell models" mantra?

All these pathetic money grabs like Apocalypse, and the stupid gak they're doing to their core games now for the sake of pushing models (like being able to "buy" terrain, yeah I bet that's not going to be unbalanced at all, and these new allies rules which only have one real purpose), the yearly price increases that happen "just because" and now without even so much as an announcement, turning White Dwarf into an expensive catalog with nothing of any real value in it to actual gamers...

Yeah, they're so much better off now. I often times forget GW is even a business at all, they feel more like my best fething friend. Honestly.

Formosa wrote:this is all bloody stupid, i defended allies as it allowed me to make a fluff army or add some cool stuff to my Ravenwing or DW, but it seems fluff matters not anymore.

Therion wrote:

These 40K ally rules are clearly meant for one player to combine units from different armies in a single list

A few pages ago I already ranted about how terrible and inherently and irreparably imbalanced the allies system is so now I'll just remind people once again that we the players don't need to take part in any system we find to be imbalanced.

Sidstyler wrote:Can we stop talking about video games? It's a bs analogy anyway because not every game is this "4-hour grind and then you're done, unless you play multiplayer" kind of thing that everyone here seems to think it is. I get the feeling that the only games people know about or have played themselves are Call of Duty or Halo...it would be the same thing as saying you can't get into wargaming because 40k is too expensive, it's just one game and not indicative of the hobby as a whole.

Glorioski wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Glorioski wrote: His whole mantra was to turn GW into more of a business. I'm sure he'd be very happy.

And so GW supposedly kicked him out because...they didn't want to be more like a business? They didn't like the "make rules to sell models" mantra?

All these pathetic money grabs like Apocalypse, and the stupid gak they're doing to their core games now for the sake of pushing models (like being able to "buy" terrain, yeah I bet that's not going to be unbalanced at all, and these new allies rules which only have one real purpose), the yearly price increases that happen "just because" and now without even so much as an announcement, turning White Dwarf into an expensive catalog with nothing of any real value in it to actual gamers...

Yeah, they're so much better off now. I often times forget GW is even a business at all, they feel more like my best fething friend. Honestly.

No they dind't kick him out they forced him out, i.e. asked him to leave. It wasn't because of his outlook on GW but because he was at logger heads with others about 4th edition. He left months before it came out.

I don't know if you guys have a short memory or are too young to remember AC. But this is a guy who during third admitted to having not played a game of 40k in a year (while still wiritng codexes). This was not someone who made good ol' balanced codexes of the old days. No, to be honest they never existed.

tetrisphreak wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Can we stop talking about video games? It's a bs analogy anyway because not every game is this "4-hour grind and then you're done, unless you play multiplayer" kind of thing that everyone here seems to think it is. I get the feeling that the only games people know about or have played themselves are Call of Duty or Halo...it would be the same thing as saying you can't get into wargaming because 40k is too expensive, it's just one game and not indicative of the hobby as a whole.

Just to touch on your point - I have played many games, my entire life from the time i was 6. I'm 28 now. I cannot think of one game i played continuously for 4 years straight, on any system from NES all the way to PS3. I still go back for nostalgia and play SMB or Tetris here and again, but those are classics.

The cost for both is expensive.
The value, however, is actually arguably higher for a big rulebook, considering it's my current go-to hobby. For many of us, I would think the same applies. The comparison to video games is not to straw-man the cost of the book, make no mistake $75 USD is a large chunk of money. It's simply a comparison to the most similarly priced hobby, that is far more common in society today than wargaming.

Glorioski wrote:No they dind't kick him out they forced him out, i.e. asked him to leave.

Glorioski wrote:It wasn't because of his outlook on GW but because he was at logger heads with others about 4th edition. He left months before it came out.

Palindrome wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Glorioski wrote: His whole mantra was to turn GW into more of a business. I'm sure he'd be very happy.

And so GW supposedly kicked him out because...they didn't want to be more like a business? They didn't like the "make rules to sell models" mantra?

All these pathetic money grabs like Apocalypse, and the stupid gak they're doing to their core games now for the sake of pushing models (like being able to "buy" terrain, yeah I bet that's not going to be unbalanced at all, and these new allies rules which only have one real purpose), the yearly price increases that happen "just because" and now without even so much as an announcement, turning White Dwarf into an expensive catalog with nothing of any real value in it to actual gamers...

Yeah, they're so much better off now. I often times forget GW is even a business at all, they feel more like my best fething friend. Honestly.

No they dind't kick him out they forced him out, i.e. asked him to leave. It wasn't because of his outlook on GW but because he was at logger heads with others about 4th edition. He left months before it came out.

I don't know if you guys have a short memory or are too young to remember AC. But this is a guy who during third admitted to having not played a game of 40k in a year (while still wiritng codexes). This was not someone who made good ol' balanced codexes of the old days. No, to be honest they never existed.

Yet he also wrote, or co-wrote, some of GW's better rules. I am having a hard time reconciling his body of work with what 40k has become.

Sidstyler wrote:

Glorioski wrote:It wasn't because of his outlook on GW but because he was at logger heads with others about 4th edition. He left months before it came out.

That wasn't really what you said in the post I quoted though, your choice of words was what made me raise an eyebrow: "more like a business", as if that was something GW didn't want. If you're trying to argue that he simply didn't like the direction they were taking 4th and left because they didn't like his ideas then I can buy that, because it kinda falls in line with what everyone else has been saying anyway.

But you were trying to lay the blame for GW being more "business-like" on Andy Chambers, as if they wouldn't have done that without him anyway, and I thought that part was funny.

Palindrome wrote:To be honest I stopped playing 40k in 3rd ed so I can't remember those codices and the story goes that he had become disillusioned by 3rd ed so its not exactly suprising. However he most certainly was a good games designer, Necromunda and BFG are proof of this.

This is rather ironic. If the game is imbalanced, and that is a problem for you, maybe you should consider a different game.

Glorioski wrote:

Palindrome wrote:To be honest I stopped playing 40k in 3rd ed so I can't remember those codices and the story goes that he had become disillusioned by 3rd ed so its not exactly suprising. However he most certainly was a good games designer, Necromunda and BFG are proof of this.

He had his moments, just like Gav Thorpe. But they were both hit and miss.

Semper wrote:I think the thought of Andy Chambers being a bad game designer or bad for GW is absolutely preposterous. The game has been an utter shadow of its self since he left, WD died the day Paul Sawyer left. The early naughties and late 90's were the renaissance of GW in a lot of ways spurred by a lot of designers trying to take an old system into the a modern market by a means of expansion and creativity the company has not had since outside of the BL. Some examples born out of this era come in the form of Necromunda, BFG, Inquisitor, minor psychic powers, monster design rules.. at least they attempted to make a codex eldar craftoworld and beast rules for things like the enslavers (a major part of 40k history I hasten to add)..

What they accomplished may not have been perfect, but to that I would only say what is and only an idiot would think what came after they left was anything good. Final example... 4th/5th Ed CSM codex has 3rd in the rear view mirror when it comes to heading for utter crap.

Sidstyler wrote:Can we stop talking about video games? It's a bs analogy anyway because not every game is this "4-hour grind and then you're done, unless you play multiplayer" kind of thing that everyone here seems to think it is.

Pony_law wrote:Allies is a stupid concept game balance wise but smart from a sales perspecitve. We all know which of those 2 considerations win when GW makes a decision.

It will be fun times seeing IG armies with Th/ss termis or purifiers sitting near their lines. Or draigowing armies with 90 boys as well. I just can't see a way this could work without absolutely breaking the armies theselves. If allies are allowed in tournaments i predict we will never see a pure 1 codex army win another thing ever again. (i mean sonme of the things I'm imaging are so broke, but hey at least my SM can finally take longfangs, and fast vindicators)

insaniak wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Can we stop talking about video games? It's a bs analogy anyway because not every game is this "4-hour grind and then you're done, unless you play multiplayer" kind of thing that everyone here seems to think it is.

That doesn't invalidate the analogy, unless nobody actually buys those sort of games.

Speaking as someone who does buy a lot of games that have a single-player story that gives around 10 hours or so of playtime, the analogy is perfectly valid. I have never played Call of Duty, or Halo. If those were the sort of games I was talking about, then it would have been a bad analogy, because primarily multi-player games potentially give you a lot more game time.

In fact, using something like Halo as a comparison, the 40K rulebook would be a bad investment, rather than a good one... because I would get just as much play out of Halo for a lower cost up front.

insaniak wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Can we stop talking about video games? It's a bs analogy anyway because not every game is this "4-hour grind and then you're done, unless you play multiplayer" kind of thing that everyone here seems to think it is.

That doesn't invalidate the analogy, unless nobody actually buys those sort of games.

Speaking as someone who does buy a lot of games that have a single-player story that gives around 10 hours or so of playtime, the analogy is perfectly valid. I have never played Call of Duty, or Halo. If those were the sort of games I was talking about, then it would have been a bad analogy, because primarily multi-player games potentially give you a lot more game time.

In fact, using something like Halo as a comparison, the 40K rulebook would be a bad investment, rather than a good one... because I would get just as much play out of Halo for a lower cost up front.

JohnnoM wrote:Dear god,the allies are up:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=§ion=&pIndex=0&aId=22400024a&start=1&multiPageMode=true

Speaking as someone who does buy a lot of games that have a single-player story that gives around 10 hours or so of playtime, the analogy is perfectly valid

Lysenis wrote:

Pony_law wrote:Allies is a stupid concept game balance wise but smart from a sales perspecitve. We all know which of those 2 considerations win when GW makes a decision.

It will be fun times seeing IG armies with Th/ss termis or purifiers sitting near their lines. Or draigowing armies with 90 boys as well. I just can't see a way this could work without absolutely breaking the armies theselves. If allies are allowed in tournaments i predict we will never see a pure 1 codex army win another thing ever again. (i mean sonme of the things I'm imaging are so broke, but hey at least my SM can finally take longfangs, and fast vindicators)

YES! Now my outflanking Baal Predator with a Flamestorm cannon (or normal version) will have a Storm Talon as Escort! That way I can have it flying in, Then I can have Necron warriors to back up my assault marines. . .


Shoot me now and get it over with. . . .

Glorioski wrote:The only place think the analogy fails is that you need more than just the rulebook to play 40k, whereas a video game you don't. Ohter than that I can see your point. There is more enjoyment to be hand from the BBB than there is from a video game.

Therion wrote:

Speaking as someone who does buy a lot of games that have a single-player story that gives around 10 hours or so of playtime, the analogy is perfectly valid

I played Diablo 3 for about 85 hours before I cleared it solo on inferno difficulty. Skyrim gave me 120 hours of gameplay before I was done with it. I'm pretty sure Fallout New Vegas was also good for more than 50 hours but I can't remember now. All of those games cost about 50 euros.

I'm not sure which modern games are only worth 10 hours of gameplay in single player but I've never bought any. Maybe I've just been picking and choosing the bigger franchises.

Palindrome wrote:I have played nearly 700 hours in TF2 and thats free, a wargames rulebook isn't likely to match that

Lysenis wrote:YES! Now my outflanking Baal Predator with a Flamestorm cannon (or normal version) will have a Storm Talon as Escort! That way I can have it flying in, Then I can have Necron warriors to back up my assault marines. . .

AAA FPS games like one of the many CoD games typically last under 10 hours.

Therion wrote:I'm not sure which modern games are only worth 10 hours of gameplay in single player but I've never bought any. Maybe I've just been picking and choosing the bigger franchises.

insaniak wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Can we stop talking about video games? It's a bs analogy anyway because not every game is this "4-hour grind and then you're done, unless you play multiplayer" kind of thing that everyone here seems to think it is.

That doesn't invalidate the analogy, unless nobody actually buys those sort of games.

Speaking as someone who does buy a lot of games that have a single-player story that gives around 10 hours or so of playtime, the analogy is perfectly valid. I have never played Call of Duty, or Halo. If those were the sort of games I was talking about, then it would have been a bad analogy, because primarily multi-player games potentially give you a lot more game time.

In fact, using something like Halo as a comparison, the 40K rulebook would be a bad investment, rather than a good one... because I would get just as much play out of Halo for a lower cost up front.

Magc8Ball wrote:Oh, dammit. I just realized that the allies rules are going to make entire units that I've already built useless because they'll be too damned confusing. My =I= army has two units of henchmen that use Eldar and Orks respectively. Since they were constructed with the Henchmen unit rules in mind, they're not really usable as anything else, and I suspect that if I field them in 6E it's going to cause problems for my opponents.

Drat. :\

Eldar Craft wrote:Im excited for the possibility of counts as you could maybe use the allies system for. Among friends anyway. Say I want some Eldaresque storm shield terminators and I convert up some wraithguard with sheilds and hammers. BOOM aliies!

Magc8Ball wrote:Oh, dammit. I just realized that the allies rules are going to make entire units that I've already built useless because they'll be too damned confusing.

Magc8Ball wrote:Oh, dammit. I just realized that the allies rules are going to make entire units that I've already built useless because they'll be too damned confusing. My =I= army has two units of henchmen that use Eldar and Orks respectively. Since they were constructed with the Henchmen unit rules in mind, they're not really usable as anything else, and I suspect that if I field them in 6E it's going to cause problems for my opponents.

Drat. :\

GW wrote:'Just an announcement for everyone unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances the new dice (besides the ones in the gamers edition) have been delayed and will not be released until further notice'

Matt.Kingsley wrote:Oh, and I've found out why some of the things weren't put up for advanced order in Aus + Others, namely concerning the new dice.

GW wrote:'Just an announcement for everyone unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances the new dice (besides the ones in the gamers edition) have been delayed and will not be released until further notice'

warpcrafter wrote:So I can put a bunch of guns on some killa kans and say they're obliterators? Or put some rokkits on the backs of some meganobs and say they're raptors? That's pretty cool thinking. I now wonder what other devious ploys I can use to confuse the hell out of my enemies.

Davylove21 wrote:My mind's replete with the word ORKTAU!

I hope that a week from now it still is

Dave-c wrote:Sorry if this has been covered, but in the gamers edition i cant find what the little skull statues are. Read description on GW, but cant seem to find it at all.

Anyone know?

RegulusBlack wrote:im actually sad that IG are able to be grabbed up by everyone.

now instead of me owning an army , I am reduced to being everyone elses accessory

yayyyyyy......

TechMarine1 wrote:Space Marines+GK (to get devastations that can fire through terrain)

Tau+Orks (for CC support)

I like some of these possibilities (for friendly games of course). I agree that this would probably break tournaments because it gets rid of some of each lists handicaps that you would otherwise have to work around.

tetrisphreak wrote:

TechMarine1 wrote:Space Marines+GK (to get devastations that can fire through terrain)

Tau+Orks (for CC support)

I like some of these possibilities (for friendly games of course). I agree that this would probably break tournaments because it gets rid of some of each lists handicaps that you would otherwise have to work around.

I've seen this sentiment a lot since the allies rumors started flying, and now with confirmation in the WD even more so.

So i pose this question:

What is wrong with every army being able to shore up it's weaknesses? Once all armies are solid all-rounders, if commanded by the proper generals, we should see the MOST fair, balanced version of 40K ever. An all-round army like Tau+Orks still has both armies weaknesses - Assault the codex:tau units and shoot down the codex: orks units. I'm not seeing the bad side here, since everyone has access to everyone else's drugs in this case.

Griever wrote:It's annoying when all people do is talk about allies when they're obviously not going to be apart of non team games

You guys do realize that page is part of a rules packet for a DOUBLES TOURNAMENT right?

Stop talking about this stuff like in a regular game of 1v1 40k you're going to be able to take Tau & Orks in the same army. It's not happening.

It's also preventing people with reading comprehension from discussing actual possible rules.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:

TechMarine1 wrote:Space Marines+GK (to get devastations that can fire through terrain)

Tau+Orks (for CC support)

I like some of these possibilities (for friendly games of course). I agree that this would probably break tournaments because it gets rid of some of each lists handicaps that you would otherwise have to work around.

I've seen this sentiment a lot since the allies rumors started flying, and now with confirmation in the WD even more so.

So i pose this question:

What is wrong with every army being able to shore up it's weaknesses? Once all armies are solid all-rounders, if commanded by the proper generals, we should see the MOST fair, balanced version of 40K ever. An all-round army like Tau+Orks still has both armies weaknesses - Assault the codex:tau units and shoot down the codex: orks units. I'm not seeing the bad side here, since everyone has access to everyone else's drugs in this case.

Probably cherry picking making the game dumber.

Don't think Tau + Orks. Think Tau + Space marines, where they get a HQ + Terminator + Dedicated LR Transport and a cheapo scout unit. Now you've got some very serious problems. Railguns + JSJ Suits (that can buy terrain that always blocks LOS, that always is available - where you want it), with a massive counter-charge unit?

azazel the cat wrote:...1x Harbinger of Transmogrification w/ Voltaic Staff (nobody assaults this walking Gauss battery)...

Griever wrote:Okay, I've officially quit this stupid game. I just know the first time I see Space Marines and Eldar fighting against my Loyalist IG I'm going to lose it.

This is just a blatant attempt to get people to buy more models, and they've completely ruined any the only thing that still kept me in the game (the fluff, the feel of the game universe)

Griever wrote:Okay, I've officially quit this stupid game. I just know the first time I see Space Marines and Eldar fighting against my Loyalist IG I'm going to lose it.

This is just a blatant attempt to get people to buy more models, and they've completely ruined any the only thing that still kept me in the game (the fluff, the feel of the game universe)

NimbleJack3 wrote:I was considering getting the Gamer's Edition, but at ~USD$130 there's no way in hell I'd shell out. I'll probably just get the dice set for that lovely charge-pack tin.

alarmingrick wrote:

NimbleJack3 wrote:I was considering getting the Gamer's Edition, but at ~USD$130 there's no way in hell I'd shell out. I'll probably just get the dice set for that lovely charge-pack tin.

The tin is in the Gamer's edition only. So you're not getting it unless you shell out the $130 USD....

sarduka42 wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

NimbleJack3 wrote:I was considering getting the Gamer's Edition, but at ~USD$130 there's no way in hell I'd shell out. I'll probably just get the dice set for that lovely charge-pack tin.

The tin is in the Gamer's edition only. So you're not getting it unless you shell out the $130 USD....

Actually thats not quite correct. The White Dwarf states specifically that the dice set that you purchase separately comes with the Lasgun power pack tin. Only problem now is that Games Workshop's facebook page is saying that the dice are not coming any time soon due to some unforeseen delay.

tetrisphreak wrote:What is wrong with every army being able to shore up it's weaknesses? Once all armies are solid all-rounders, if commanded by the proper generals, we should see the MOST fair, balanced version of 40K ever. ...

Goresaw wrote:So does this mean my battlewagon orks now have a detachment of an Inquisitor grenade caddie + DCAs riding in a Storm Raven with two Psyflemen dreadnoughts offering fire support?

Actually a better question is who in their right mind would ever want to play a game with me using this kind of army?

Glorioski wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:GW has 'apperently' taken down the Ultimate Bundle, Collectors Edition and Gamers Edition from the Aussie site...

Maybe they ran out of their allocated stock. The ultimate bundle got taken off the UK site this morning.

Cyrax wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:...1x Harbinger of Transmogrification w/ Voltaic Staff (nobody assaults this walking Gauss battery)...

Harbingers of Transmogrification carry the Tremorstave.

Griever wrote:Okay, I've officially quit this stupid game. I just know the first time I see Space Marines and Eldar fighting against my Loyalist IG I'm going to lose it.

This is just a blatant attempt to get people to buy more models, and they've completely ruined any the only thing that still kept me in the game (the fluff, the feel of the game universe)

wyomingfox wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:What is wrong with every army being able to shore up it's weaknesses? Once all armies are solid all-rounders, if commanded by the proper generals, we should see the MOST fair, balanced version of 40K ever. ...

There is understandable concern as not every army can. That and as a nid player, I have some logical reservations about other armies having acces to rune priests (and therefore JOTWW) and longfangs .

junk wrote:I seriously doubt that allies will be mandatory. So everyone who is mad as hell about the idea of black turtles being able to ally with dancing melons needs to consider that they will not be forced to actually use those two factions; but the rest of us who are excited about the possibilities are happy the mechanic exists to play out a battle where the Sneaky Pilgrims and Fairy Bobbleheads decide to work together to defeat the Monopoly Men.

alarmingrick wrote:

sarduka42 wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

NimbleJack3 wrote:I was considering getting the Gamer's Edition, but at ~USD$130 there's no way in hell I'd shell out. I'll probably just get the dice set for that lovely charge-pack tin.

The tin is in the Gamer's edition only. So you're not getting it unless you shell out the $130 USD....

Actually thats not quite correct. The White Dwarf states specifically that the dice set that you purchase separately comes with the Lasgun power pack tin. Only problem now is that Games Workshop's facebook page is saying that the dice are not coming any time soon due to some unforeseen delay.

Well, they are at least colored differntly! Damn it, they have to special besides just the purse and holders!

Griever wrote:Okay, I've officially quit this stupid game. I just know the first time I see Space Marines and Eldar fighting against my Loyalist IG I'm going to lose it.

This is just a blatant attempt to get people to buy more models, and they've completely ruined any the only thing that still kept me in the game (the fluff, the feel of the game universe)

H.B.M.C. wrote:A lot of big AAA games these days have pathetic single-player aspects. Most of the Call of Duty games these days have 4-6 hour single-player games.

On the other hand, I bought Just Cause 2 for $18 and got over 70 hours out of it.

lazarian wrote:

Goresaw wrote:So does this mean my battlewagon orks now have a detachment of an Inquisitor grenade caddie + DCAs riding in a Storm Raven with two Psyflemen dreadnoughts offering fire support?

Actually a better question is who in their right mind would ever want to play a game with me using this kind of army?

Well there are a dozen other combinations off the top of my head that would gladly play and do well against you. Necrons look insanely good with 6th and heaven help the sucker who plays against 3 doom scythes/monoliths and 18 wraiths + whatever that player wants to add in they think they might be 'missing'. Or how about the requisite guard army that has the center snugly held by 20 death company? Tons of hell is about to break loose and your army concept, while strong, will certainly find more than adequate challenges.

The point above is a good one, everyone on an elite level will have some outrageous silliness in a competitive environment.

Goresaw wrote:

lazarian wrote:

Goresaw wrote:So does this mean my battlewagon orks now have a detachment of an Inquisitor grenade caddie + DCAs riding in a Storm Raven with two Psyflemen dreadnoughts offering fire support?

Actually a better question is who in their right mind would ever want to play a game with me using this kind of army?

Well there are a dozen other combinations off the top of my head that would gladly play and do well against you. Necrons look insanely good with 6th and heaven help the sucker who plays against 3 doom scythes/monoliths and 18 wraiths + whatever that player wants to add in they think they might be 'missing'. Or how about the requisite guard army that has the center snugly held by 20 death company? Tons of hell is about to break loose and your army concept, while strong, will certainly find more than adequate challenges.

The point above is a good one, everyone on an elite level will have some outrageous silliness in a competitive environment.

I'm not saying my idea is any sort of super list. I'm just a little saddened that you can take a list that would give someone a good (hopefully enjoyable) game and just by adding allies, turn it into an unfun, beatface, exercise in frustration by removing the weaknesses that an intelligent designer built into the list so that players could have those good enjoyable games!

I know thats really not a valid argument. If someone wants to WAC he can just go build a power army. Its not like he needs allies to do it.But still, I can't help but be sad. Its like watching something beautiful (like a somewhat balanced army) turn into something twisted.

undertow wrote:

junk wrote:I seriously doubt that allies will be mandatory. So everyone who is mad as hell about the idea of black turtles being able to ally with dancing melons needs to consider that they will not be forced to actually use those two factions; but the rest of us who are excited about the possibilities are happy the mechanic exists to play out a battle where the Sneaky Pilgrims and Fairy Bobbleheads decide to work together to defeat the Monopoly Men.

I think I would pay lots of money to see a codex for an army with any of those names.

wuestenfux wrote:Well, the topic of ''allies'' is overemphasized here. There are certainly more interesting (new) rules to be discussed.

Ahtman wrote:The last time I recall an actual list for Genestealer Cults was the Black Army Book from the Second Edition box set.

Griever wrote:...against all 40k fluff

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Ahtman wrote:The last time I recall an actual list for Genestealer Cults was the Black Army Book from the Second Edition box set.

The Genestealer Cult list was in Codex Tyranids (2nd Edition). It was separate to the standard Tyranid list that was in the same book.

Griever wrote:Completely daft, nonsensical, and against all 40k fluff, but big.

Reivax26 wrote:I wonder how many people are going to leave 40k and start playing Warmachine?

4 people in my gaming group have already sold their 40k armies and picked up their armies from Privateer Press and are asking me when I am going to join them. To be honest its sounding better and better with every passing day.

I only have one complaint about 6th...I don't like the 2d6 for the charge distance. My major complaint is that in a world wide economy like the one we are in GW can justify someone paying $82.50 for a Stormraven or $75 for a Land Raider.

If you want to generate new players and get them involved in the tabletop gaming genre jacking prices through the roof isn't a good way to do it. I can understand the $75 for the rulebook now that I have found out more about it. Its a really thick hardback book with a bunch of really cool artwork and its got the new rules. Oddly enough the preorder prices on Ebay are between $54 and $62.

MadCowCrazy wrote:

Griever wrote:Completely daft, nonsensical, and against all 40k fluff, but big.

Guess you dont know anything about the 40k fluff then.... different races "helping" each other is all over the place...


I think the reason GKs can ally with almost everyone is due to Inquisitors, but shouldn't Inquisitors from the Radical persuasion be allowed to ally with Chaos? They do use chaos items, weapons and daemonhosts etc...

Ascalam wrote:'Completely daft, nonsensical, and against all 40k fluff, but big. '

Seems to be the current direction with GW, anyway

MadCowCrazy wrote:

Griever wrote:Completely daft, nonsensical, and against all 40k fluff, but big.

Guess you dont know anything about the 40k fluff then.... different races "helping" each other is all over the place...


I think the reason GKs can ally with almost everyone is due to Inquisitors, but shouldn't Inquisitors from the Radical persuasion be allowed to ally with Chaos? They do use chaos items, weapons and daemonhosts etc...

Ascalam wrote:

MadCowCrazy wrote:

Griever wrote:Completely daft, nonsensical, and against all 40k fluff, but big.

Guess you dont know anything about the 40k fluff then.... different races "helping" each other is all over the place...


I think the reason GKs can ally with almost everyone is due to Inquisitors, but shouldn't Inquisitors from the Radical persuasion be allowed to ally with Chaos? They do use chaos items, weapons and daemonhosts etc...

To fight chaos, so no.

It would be a tad hard to explain the Soulgrinder following you to a meeting of the Inquisition ...

They have a hard enough time explaining away the Daemon weapons and so on.

That said a Chaos army with a fallen Radical as a Chaos lord would be kind of cool...

MadCowCrazy wrote:

Griever wrote:Completely daft, nonsensical, and against all 40k fluff, but big.

Guess you dont know anything about the 40k fluff then.... different races "helping" each other is all over the place...


I think the reason GKs can ally with almost everyone is due to Inquisitors, but shouldn't Inquisitors from the Radical persuasion be allowed to ally with Chaos? They do use chaos items, weapons and daemonhosts etc...

Glorioski wrote:

Ascalam wrote:

MadCowCrazy wrote:

Griever wrote:Completely daft, nonsensical, and against all 40k fluff, but big.

Guess you dont know anything about the 40k fluff then.... different races "helping" each other is all over the place...


I think the reason GKs can ally with almost everyone is due to Inquisitors, but shouldn't Inquisitors from the Radical persuasion be allowed to ally with Chaos? They do use chaos items, weapons and daemonhosts etc...

To fight chaos, so no.

It would be a tad hard to explain the Soulgrinder following you to a meeting of the Inquisition ...

They have a hard enough time explaining away the Daemon weapons and so on.

That said a Chaos army with a fallen Radical as a Chaos lord would be kind of cool...

Maybe not radicals but heretic inquisitors like Quixos who have fallen to chaos, those could be represented. Also radicals Inquisitors and demons would work.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Ahtman wrote:The last time I recall an actual list for Genestealer Cults was the Black Army Book from the Second Edition box set.

The Genestealer Cult list was in Codex Tyranids (2nd Edition). It was separate to the standard Tyranid list that was in the same book.

Ascalam wrote:

Glorioski wrote:Maybe not radicals but heretic inquisitors like Quixos who have fallen to chaos, those could be represented. Also radicals Inquisitors and demons would work.

But then that opens up GK (same codex) and Daemons, which really doesn't. I doubt that it would stay as just Inquisitor + Daemons in the hands of a TFG who wanted fateweaver chilling behind his Dreadknights

It's an neat idea, fluffwise, but a really bad one gamewise..

Griever wrote: I have no problem with Tau and Space Marines not killing each other in the fluff, instead turning on an incoming Ork Waagh to stave off extermination. But this SHOULD NOT be something you can do EVERY SINGLE GAME regardless of who you are fighting against.

What's the point of even "playing an army" if you can take whatever the hell you want from any codex anyways?

Just looked up more allied rules. You can ally Space Marine with Dark Eldar? They've gone off the deep end here, and anybody who doesn't see that is just taking whatever crap GW feeds them.

Glorioski wrote:Exactly the allegiances on the table can represent the most extreme circumstances.

insaniak wrote:

Griever wrote: I have no problem with Tau and Space Marines not killing each other in the fluff, instead turning on an incoming Ork Waagh to stave off extermination. But this SHOULD NOT be something you can do EVERY SINGLE GAME regardless of who you are fighting against.

How is it any different to fielding Marneus Calgar in every single game?

It doesn't represent those Tau being allied to the Marines for ever more... It just means your games are representing those battles in which they were.

What's the point of even "playing an army" if you can take whatever the hell you want from any codex anyways?

Has it actually been confirmed yet that you can take whatever you want from any codex?

Just looked up more allied rules. You can ally Space Marine with Dark Eldar? They've gone off the deep end here, and anybody who doesn't see that is just taking whatever crap GW feeds them.

I find it interesting how some players, upon GW releasing something that they (the player) disagrees with, immediately conclude that it's GW who are in the wrong.

It's their fluff. They write it. So when their interpretation of it differs from yours, guess which of you has the 'correct' interpretation...?

Griever wrote:

Glorioski wrote:Exactly the allegiances on the table can represent the most extreme circumstances.

If they're so "extreme" how come the rules allow to field anybody as allies in EVERY SINGLE game you play. With these current rules, Eldar can ally with Dark Eldar against other ELDAR. Tau and Space Marines can ally together against other Space Marines. You can take a mixed army of Eldar and Orks to fight against Space Marines. How does this make any sense?

May be you don't play in tournaments a lot, but you've got to understand. All people are going to do is figure out what unit from any other codex makes their army even better, and then field that in every single game. This is what the rules allow them to do.

sarduka42 wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

sarduka42 wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

NimbleJack3 wrote:I was considering getting the Gamer's Edition, but at ~USD$130 there's no way in hell I'd shell out. I'll probably just get the dice set for that lovely charge-pack tin.

The tin is in the Gamer's edition only. So you're not getting it unless you shell out the $130 USD....

Actually thats not quite correct. The White Dwarf states specifically that the dice set that you purchase separately comes with the Lasgun power pack tin. Only problem now is that Games Workshop's facebook page is saying that the dice are not coming any time soon due to some unforeseen delay.

Well, they are at least colored differntly! Damn it, they have to special besides just the purse and holders!

Oh i think i can live with the regular commoners colour dice

But now that i read the article again about the gamers edition and the dices, each dice set, each vehicle dice and each objective dice set comes with a tin. The Gamers bag has three pouches to accommodate three tins (one for each of the dice sets). So we're going to have these lasgun packs coming out of ears soon.

insaniak wrote:

Griever wrote: I have no problem with Tau and Space Marines not killing each other in the fluff, instead turning on an incoming Ork Waagh to stave off extermination. But this SHOULD NOT be something you can do EVERY SINGLE GAME regardless of who you are fighting against.

How is it any different to fielding Marneus Calgar in every single game?

It doesn't represent those Tau being allied to the Marines for ever more... It just means your games are representing those battles in which they were.

Griever wrote:If they're so "extreme" how come the rules allow to field anybody as allies in EVERY SINGLE game you play.

With these current rules, Eldar can ally with Dark Eldar against other ELDAR. Tau and Space Marines can ally together against other Space Marines. You can take a mixed army of Eldar and Orks to fight against Space Marines. How does this make any sense?

May be you don't play in tournaments a lot, but you've got to understand. All people are going to do is figure out what unit from any other codex makes their army even better, and then field that in every single game. This is what the rules allow them to do.

Just because they "write" the fluff, doesn't mean I have to like it.

If GW hired C.S. Goto to write the next 40k rulebook, would that then make it "okay" when everything you knew and enjoyed about the universe randomly changed out of thin air, and completely contradicted everything you knew about the game's universe?

insaniak wrote:

Griever wrote: I have no problem with Tau and Space Marines not killing each other in the fluff, instead turning on an incoming Ork Waagh to stave off extermination. But this SHOULD NOT be something you can do EVERY SINGLE GAME regardless of who you are fighting against.

How is it any different to fielding Marneus Calgar in every single game?

It doesn't represent those Tau being allied to the Marines for ever more... It just means your games are representing those battles in which they were.

What's the point of even "playing an army" if you can take whatever the hell you want from any codex anyways?

Has it actually been confirmed yet that you can take whatever you want from any codex?

Just looked up more allied rules. You can ally Space Marine with Dark Eldar? They've gone off the deep end here, and anybody who doesn't see that is just taking whatever crap GW feeds them.

I find it interesting how some players, upon GW releasing something that they (the player) disagrees with, immediately conclude that it's GW who are in the wrong.

It's their fluff. They write it. So when their interpretation of it differs from yours, guess which of you has the 'correct' interpretation...?

Absolutionis wrote:You complain about $75 Land Raiders and $83 Storm Ravens and yet you're fine with the $130 PP Colossals of comparable size?
A typical HQ in 40k costs $20 in Power Armor or $22.25 in Terminator Armor. A typical Warcaster in Warmachine costs $16-20 if infantry or $23-25 if larger.
A typical Space Marine in GW is $5-6 in a plastic boxed set with accessories. A typical PP grunt is about $5-6 in metal with no accesories.

Griever wrote: If an Ultramarine army always including their own Chapter Master somehow equates to an Ultramarine army always keeping a pet unit of Eldar Aspect Warriors around to fight for them in every single battle no matter who their enemy is, then you and I have a completely different view on how the 40k universe works.

The entire appeal of the game is that "in the future, there is only war". Space Marines are bred to hate and kill all xenos no matter what. Just because Matt Ward decided to write otherwise (seriously, who takes this guy seriously? His fluff is elementary school fan fiction drivel) doesn't mean that's what the 40,000 universe was intended to be.

insaniak wrote:"A Space Marine army may be accompanied by allied troops chosen from the following Warhammer 40000 lists. ...

Any Space Marine lists, Imperial Guard, Imperial Agents, Squats, Eldar (may not choose an Avatar)."

That's from the 2nd edition Codex: Ultramarines. Written in 1995... Well before Mat Ward started writing codexes.

Griever wrote:Just because Matt Ward decided to write otherwise (seriously, who takes this guy seriously? His fluff is elementary school fan fiction drivel) doesn't mean that's what the 40,000 universe was intended to be.

tryke wrote:Is the "allies" rules a game mode or its mandatory in every army?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

But some of these combinations don't make sense.

Dark Eldar with Daemons?

Tau with Daemons?

Orks with Grey Knights?

azazel the cat wrote:Someone asked why the Ultramarines would ally with the Tau against the BA. Here's a fluffy reason (just speculation):

The Golden Throne has failed, the IoM is in complete disarray, bordering on civil war; and each still-living Primarch or Chapter Master or whoever are all stepping up to claim the title of being next in line.

These pairings could easily be explained by the Imperium of Man facing a civil war (wow... Helter Skelter might actually be the most fitting term here) with the Tyranid Hive Fleets bearing down on them; not to mention that Chaos is begin to grow.


There. A potentially fluffy reason to allow the allies.

azazel the cat wrote:
I'm surprised that the DE don't already worship Slaanesh.

azazel the cat wrote:I'm surprised that the DE don't already worship Slaanesh.

H.B.M.C. wrote:But some of these combinations don't make sense.

Dark Eldar with Daemons?

Tau with Daemons?

Orks with Grey Knights?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

insaniak wrote:"A Space Marine army may be accompanied by allied troops chosen from the following Warhammer 40000 lists. ...

Any Space Marine lists, Imperial Guard, Imperial Agents, Squats, Eldar (may not choose an Avatar)."

That's from the 2nd edition Codex: Ultramarines. Written in 1995... Well before Mat Ward started writing codexes.

But some of these combinations don't make sense.

Dark Eldar with Daemons?
Tau with Daemons?
Orks with Grey Knights?

Ryan_A wrote:I was reading the codex that they show on the video and it says that EVERY vehicle has armor points, so does that mean what it says, that each vehicle will have more than one armor point?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Ryan_A wrote:I was reading the codex that they show on the video and it says that EVERY vehicle has armor points, so does that mean what it says, that each vehicle will have more than one armor point?

They'd have to, otherwise the vehicles that don't wouldn't be worth taking. It'd take a single glance to kill the vehicle, and that's absurd.

I already read some of 6th rule book there were no % in using slot

however here is something about 6th
(credit ZAlpha)

Core System

- Change to Pre-Measure like WHFB 8th Edition.
- Force Organization Chart is still in use, no use of Percentage
- Adding new FoC Slot called "Fortification" [0-1] / see below
- Phases remains the same, Movement, Shooting, and then Assault
- No Psychic Phase
- No Initiative Phase


Movement Phase
- Movement is pretty much the same. Infantry can move 6", Jump Infantry 12" and so on.

Shooting Phase
- Rapid Fire weapons can now fire at target 24" away irregardless of moving or not. (or choose to fire twice at target 12" away)
- Pistol is pretty much the same.
- New Weapon type "Salvo" - firing at max. range & max. shots if not move, or 1/2 range and 1/2 shots if moving.
- Heavy Weapon can now be fired on the move, but will be subjected to 'snap fire' rule.
- "Snap Fire" allows certain weapon types to shoot even if moving, but with a BS of 1 (ie. 6 to hit)
- Blast Weapons cannot "snap fire"
- You can only killed as much models in target unit as you can actually see (and within max range).
- Casualties are now removed from closest to furthest.
- Wound Allocation is completely changed.
- When shooting at unit partially in cover, player can choose to "Focus Fire" to kill only models in the open (or in a less covered position).
- You can now throw (most) grenades in the Shooting Phase at the range of 8", limited to 1 grenade per unit per Phase.


Assault Phase
- Charge Distance is now 2D6" adding together.
- Unit can elect to "Overwatch" if being assaulted. Simply a "Stand and Shoot 40K version" - resolved at BS1, Template does D3 hit instead.
- Overwatch can be done only once per turn.
- Unit declaring multiple assaults will suffer from "Disoriented Charge" (not get +1A)
- Unit assaulting multiple enemy unit is subjected to multiple Overwatch.
- Unlike Stand & Shoot, Overwatch does NOT cause Morale Check or Pinning.
- Pile-in reduced to 3" and is done at the model's Initiative Step (ie. before the model could strike)
- Casualties are removed from the front rank, like the case of Shooting Phase
- Units can elect to auto-fail Morale Check at the end of Combat if all models in the unit cannot hurt the attacker at all (ie. S3 vs T10).
- Challenges are in for IC.
- Close-Combat Weapon now have AP value, ranging from AP- to AP1. Pistols don't grant more bonus than in 5th Edition.
- Power SWORD and Lightning Claws are "S: as user" AP3, though Power AXE is S+1, AP2, but is subjected to penalties (Initiative Reduced)
- Fists and Chainfists are Sx2 AP2 and Unwieldy (Intiative reduced to 1), Thunder Hammers has "Concussive" (the exact (or almost) same rules as in 5th Edition)


Vehicles
- Vehicles are now limited to move at the maximum of 12" in the Movement Phase (though it can move further in the Shooting Phase if desired)
- Vehicles can opt to move "Flat Out" in the Shooting Phase, adding an extra 6".
- Vehicles movement and weapons. Defensive and Primary Weapons are gone. You can fire all of your weapons at most of the time. But moving faster will result in less weapon fired at basic BS, the rest will be fired at BS1 (Snap Fire)
- Fast Skimmer moving Flat Out can be more lethal (fire more weapons than in 5th and moving faster [12" Normal + 18" Flat Out])
- Skimmer got a cover save called Jink, basically 5+ cover save and improved to 4+ if going Flat Out.
- Vehicles count as WS0 (auto-hit) if stationary and WS1 (3+ hit) if moved. No idea on how Fast or Skimmer will have bonus, as cover aren't used in Assault.
- Flyers are now in, with its own rules.
- Flyers can move very fast and is hard to target (6 only to hit) unless the shooter has Skystrike rules that allow them to shoot flyer at normal BS.
- When moving fast (called "Zooming") Flyers cannot move less than 12" and cannot disembark any models.

Vehicle and Damage
- New Vehicle Damage Chart, one to rule them all. 1-2 being Shaken, 3 Stunned, 4 and 5 Weapon Destroyed and Immobilised, and 6 Explodes! You only roll the table if the shot penetrate the Armour. Wrecks occur only from taking certain amount of Glancing Hits.
- AP 2 weapons add +1 to the chart, while AP1 adds +2.
- AP"-" is no longer -1 on the table.
- Open-Topped is +1 as well.
- No more "Half Strength if the center hole is off", you always use full strength for any blast that hits the vehicle.
- Hull Points - a new style "wound" for vehicles. Any Glancing Hits removes 1 Hull Point, Penetrate Hit removes 1 Hull Point as well as rolling on the Damage Chart above. If reduced to 0 HP, the vehicle becomes Wreck.
- Vehicles has 3 or 4 HP, notable 4 HP vehicles are Ghost Ark, Land Raider, and Monolith. Details can be found in the rulebook appendix. (Bloodwing stated that some player propose that the formula for Hull Points is Front + Side(once) + Rear divide by 3. Fractions rounding down - this seems to be true.


Vehicle and Passenger
- Passenger can only disembark if vehicle move 0-6".
- Disembarking rules changes, you now place models in base contact with the access point and move up to 6" - this is the furthest distance the unit may move.
- Embarking is pretty much the same.
- Unit count as moving if the vehicle moved 0.1-6", and can only "Snap Fire" if the vehicle move 6.01 - 12"
- Open-topped transport rules are the same (access points and fire points)
- Exploding Flyer that has "zoomed" will result in a S10 no armour save on its passenger. And some sort of S6 Large Blast at any unit under the point the vehicle goes on flame.


Psychic Power
- NO PSYCHIC PHASE (or whatever people are assuming they are)
- Perils of the Warp causes one wound, no saves of any kind allowed.
- Types of psychic power, witchfire (psychic shooting attack), focused witchfire (has a chance to allow player to choose the target model when removing casualty by rolling low scores on Psychic Test), nova (affects all enemy units within range), maelstrom (affecting both friendly and enemy within range), blessing (augmented friend), and malediction (de-buff enemy).
- "Deny the Witch" - every models/units have a slight chance to nullify the effect of psychic power (6+). Chances increase if your unit has Psyker.
- Psychic Hood is reduced to 4+ Deny the Witch if the target of the power is within 6" of the wearer.
- There are 5 new Disciplines of Psychic Powers in the BRB, each has 7 Powers. Each army can access different Disciplines, some cannot use them at all.
- Casting Psychic Power remains the same as in 5th.
- Psychic Powers now have 2 level, calling Warp Charge 1 and 2. Mastery Level 1 can only use Warp Charge 1 power, while Mastery Level 2 allows you to cast 2 "Warp Charge 1" power or 1 "Warp Charge 2". Higher Mastery allows for more.
- Each Psyker generate Warp Charge equal to his Mastery Level.

Characters
- Look Out, Sir! is in. Grants character 50% chance to evade the attack if he's within 6" of friendly unit (works in combat too), resolved each successful Look Out Sir on the models within 6" instead.
- Look Out Sir! is improved to 2+ for Independent Character.
- Character can issue / accept challenges.
- One model in your army will be the Warlord (one with highest LD), Warlord can roll on a table (there's 3 table, you can choose 1) to see what benefit he receive. Examples are units within 12" can use his LD, the Character count as Scoring Units, Warlord has FNP if within 3" of Objective.


Tidbits
- Fortification - a new addition to the FoC, limited to 0-1 this allows player to purchase some kind of terrain for their army. Expensive one are Fortress of Redemption (220 points) and cheap ones are Aegis Defence Lines (50 points)
- Allies - a new system that allows player to have a detachment made of another army in the list. Allies works like WFB8th Edition with best buddies, normal allies, and untrusted. The detachment is limited to 1HQ and 1 Troop(compulsory) and additional 1 Troop, 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack, and 1 Heavy Support.

Missions
- There are 3 Deployment Types, one being the classic Pitched Battle, second one is reversed Pitched Battle (deploying along the short table edges), and third one is a triangular deployment.
- Selecting deployment zone remains the same, roll-off to see who deploys first and go first.
- Seize Initiative is still the same.
- 6 Missions with 2 Level Objectives. Primary Objectives grants more Victory Points, but harder to achieve. Secondary Objective is always 1 VP and has 3 of them. First Blood (for getting the first "kill point", Slay the Warlord (for killing the enemy Warlord - aka. general), and Linebreaker (having your units in enemy deployment zone at the end of the game)
- Deep Strike Mishap is softened now: 1 - You're Dead, 2-3 Misplaced, and 4-6 Delayed.
- Feel No Pain dropped to 5+
- There's still only 1 Level of Instant Death, no Instant Death(x)
- Fleet allows for re-rolls on Run and possibly Assault distances.
- "Hammer of Wrath" allows model to make single attack at their base strength before combat on the turn it assault. Jump Infantry and Bike have it.
- Monstrous Creature can make "Smash" attack, forfeit half of its attack to resolve attack at Sx2 against vehicle.
- Flying Monstrous Creature can make two mode of movement. One being 24" move, performing D3+1 "Vector Strike" on a single unit within the path and then shoot up to two weapons or run 2D6" in the shooting phase. However, it cannot assault or being assaulted unless it get shot and fall down from the sky first (can't remember how you fire at it, 6 only?) Should it fall from the sky, it will take S9 hit and can now be assaulted as normal.
- Sniper has rule to allow them to allocate wounds to the model of your choice if you roll a 6 when rolling to hit.
- Rage is now +2 Attack on assault.
- Many new generalization of rules...such as Armourbane (roll 2d6 for armour penetration) and Fleshbane (2+ to wound)....this also expands to weapons as well (unwieldy, concussive, etc.)

Read more: http://thetyranidhive.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=38567&page=26#ixzz1yhULJSQ1

H.B.M.C. wrote:In those two first examples they're not "allies" insaniak. They're just fighting at the same time. It's not even a 'the enemy of my enemy' situation either.

Don't be so intentionally ignorant of the reasons some of us dislike this. We once had a huge mega-game where Eldar and Chaos fought side by side because the Eldar wanted the Chaos Lord to free his hand from the Wailing Doom he had become bonded to (so their plan was to let him succeed and then attack him). It didn't make them 'allies'.

H.B.M.C. wrote:In those two first examples they're not "allies" insaniak. They're just fighting at the same time. It's not even a 'the enemy of my enemy' situation either.

Don't be so intentionally ignorant of the reasons some of us dislike this. We once had a huge mega-game where Eldar and Chaos fought side by side because the Eldar wanted the Chaos Lord to free his hand from the Wailing Doom he had become bonded to (so their plan was to let him succeed and then attack him). It didn't make them 'allies'.

Glorioski wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:In those two first examples they're not "allies" insaniak. They're just fighting at the same time. It's not even a 'the enemy of my enemy' situation either.

Don't be so intentionally ignorant of the reasons some of us dislike this. We once had a huge mega-game where Eldar and Chaos fought side by side because the Eldar wanted the Chaos Lord to free his hand from the Wailing Doom he had become bonded to (so their plan was to let him succeed and then attack him). It didn't make them 'allies'.

It does actually make them allies for the period they were fighting together. The definition of allies is two parties united to a common goal. Not two best pals who would do anything for each other.

H.B.M.C. wrote:In those two first examples they're not "allies" insaniak. They're just fighting at the same time. It's not even a 'the enemy of my enemy' situation either.

Don't be so intentionally ignorant of the reasons some of us dislike this. We once had a huge mega-game where Eldar and Chaos fought side by side because the Eldar wanted the Chaos Lord to free his hand from the Wailing Doom he had become bonded to (so their plan was to let him succeed and then attack him). It didn't make them 'allies'.

Glorioski wrote:Probably because he wants to devour their souls.

I could see maybe them working with Khorne against Slaanesh, but yeh that's the hardest one to explain.

JB wrote:Blasts use full strength against vehicles even if the center hole isn't over the vehicle?

- New Weapon type "Salvo" - firing at max. range & max. shots if not move, or 1/2 range and 1/2 shots if moving.

Kal-El wrote:bye bye cookie cutter lists! This change is being looked at so negitive. With the ally rules being added to the mix we won't see "just another GK army, or just another SW army etc." This adds a lot of flavor to the list building.

Aeon wrote:Had a quick search, couldnt find if this had been posted.

insaniak wrote:

JB wrote:Blasts use full strength against vehicles even if the center hole isn't over the vehicle?

They always used to. It was only with 5th edition that was introduced.

JB wrote: Seems that a good way to get rid of a zooming flyer is just to drop a Manticore rocket on it. BS1 doesn't matter much when you roll a hit on the scatter die or scatter a bit but end up with 2-3 large templates that might still touch the flyer.

Palindrome wrote:

Kal-El wrote:bye bye cookie cutter lists! This change is being looked at so negitive. With the ally rules being added to the mix we won't see "just another GK army, or just another SW army etc." This adds a lot of flavor to the list building.

There will still be 'cookie cutter' lists, they may be more varied than now but there will still be the problem of identical 'internet' lists. The only thing that will have a good chance at preventing them is for GW to suddenly realise that all their armies need to be internally and externally balanced and not just thrown together with little real playtesting.

lord_blackfang wrote:

JB wrote: Seems that a good way to get rid of a zooming flyer is just to drop a Manticore rocket on it. BS1 doesn't matter much when you roll a hit on the scatter die or scatter a bit but end up with 2-3 large templates that might still touch the flyer.

You're kidding yourself if you think you'll be able to fire artillery at airplanes.

Griever wrote:
Just because they "write" the fluff, doesn't mean I have to like it. They' completely and utterly altered the very fabric of the universe they've created. The people who originally creaed the game and the universe we love don't even work for the the company now. The people that created the game I loved have long since left, and the people who are left have completely and utterly ruined it.

Absolutionis wrote:

Reivax26 wrote:I wonder how many people are going to leave 40k and start playing Warmachine?

4 people in my gaming group have already sold their 40k armies and picked up their armies from Privateer Press and are asking me when I am going to join them. To be honest its sounding better and better with every passing day.

I only have one complaint about 6th...I don't like the 2d6 for the charge distance. My major complaint is that in a world wide economy like the one we are in GW can justify someone paying $82.50 for a Stormraven or $75 for a Land Raider.

If you want to generate new players and get them involved in the tabletop gaming genre jacking prices through the roof isn't a good way to do it. I can understand the $75 for the rulebook now that I have found out more about it. Its a really thick hardback book with a bunch of really cool artwork and its got the new rules. Oddly enough the preorder prices on Ebay are between $54 and $62.

Warmachine isn't the only option out there. On a model-to-model basis, it's just as expensive as Games Workshop's models.

You complain about $75 Land Raiders and $83 Storm Ravens and yet you're fine with the $130 PP Colossals of comparable size?
A typical HQ in 40k costs $20 in Power Armor or $22.25 in Terminator Armor. A typical Warcaster in Warmachine costs $16-20 if infantry or $23-25 if larger.
A typical Space Marine in GW is $5-6 in a plastic boxed set with accessories. A typical PP grunt is about $5-6 in metal with no accesories.

They're comparable.

The only thing that is concerning is the initial investment for new players that have to get a whole new army.
For those of us already invested in Warhammer, the difference is negligible.


Regardless, if you want Warmachine-style gameplay at a lower cost, play Magic the Gathering. If you want Warmachine-style aesthetics at lower cost, play World of Warcraft. If you want just a great miniatures game at lower cost, play Infinity or Malifaux. If you want to just push miniatures around at a lower cost and throw dice mindlessly, play Flames or War or something by Spartan Games.

There are many options out there; don't let yourself be tricked into a false dichotomy.

H.B.M.C. wrote:But some of these combinations don't make sense.

Dark Eldar with Daemons?
Tau with Daemons?
Orks with Grey Knights?

GW Facebook page wrote:Due to problems with the warp, the limited edition dice sets and the servo-skull tape measure - as shown in White Dwarf this month - have been delayed. (These are standard sets, not the red ones that come with the Gamers' Edition.) We'll let everyone know as soon as they're available to order, but for now please accept our apologies. Now, to purge some Daemons...

ColdSadHungry wrote:With vehicles taking such a nerf, the temptation to take anti tank weaponry might actually see many people disappointed when they realise all their potent anti tank stuff has no tanks to aim at because nobody will take them. I really want to see the Erratas to weapons more than anything else now. And whether the deep strike mechanic has changed.

insaniak wrote:Isn't that what the 'Allies of Convenience' rules are intended to represent, though? Armies that aren't actually on the same side, but just happen to find themselves temporarily heading in the same direction?

insaniak wrote:Speaking as someone who enjoys the game and the background behind it, I find it more productive to go with the latter option, since the former just results in the fluff being broken... thus lessening my enjoyment of it. YMMV.

lord_blackfang wrote:

JB wrote: Seems that a good way to get rid of a zooming flyer is just to drop a Manticore rocket on it. BS1 doesn't matter much when you roll a hit on the scatter die or scatter a bit but end up with 2-3 large templates that might still touch the flyer.

You're kidding yourself if you think you'll be able to fire artillery at airplanes.

JB wrote:Blasts use full strength against vehicles even if the center hole isn't over the vehicle?

oldone wrote:Hey not sure if any else has pointed this out ( haven't read the whole thread ) but on the youtube trailer from Friday they showed a page from the BRB about vehicles, i had a look and paused it at the 1m20s marks (roughly) and notice a list of vehicles:

fast
flyer
heavy
chariot
hover
opened topped
skimmer
tank
transport
walker

Also noticed that flyers scatter 2d6 when destroyed and use the large blast marker causing S6 AP- to units under templates, also models who where inside must be placed within 3" of the center hole or be removed.
Hope that helps =)

- Feel No Pain dropped to 5+

H.B.M.C. wrote:And how is that functionally different from "best friends forever" style allies?

Can't you see that for some of us doing that is what breaks the fluff?

ChocolateGork wrote:

oldone wrote:Hey not sure if any else has pointed this out ( haven't read the whole thread ) but on the youtube trailer from Friday they showed a page from the BRB about vehicles, i had a look and paused it at the 1m20s marks (roughly) and notice a list of vehicles:

fast
flyer
heavy
chariot
hover
opened topped
skimmer
tank
transport
walker

Also noticed that flyers scatter 2d6 when destroyed and use the large blast marker causing S6 AP- to units under templates, also models who where inside must be placed within 3" of the center hole or be removed.
Hope that helps =)

Hadnt seen this. It seems air cavalry wont be as popular and what happens to the occupants of an exploded vehicle?

If they're so "extreme" how come the rules allow to field anybody as allies in EVERY SINGLE game you play. With these current rules, Eldar can ally with Dark Eldar against other ELDAR. Tau and Space Marines can ally together against other Space Marines. You can take a mixed army of Eldar and Orks to fight against Space Marines. How does this make any sense?

May be you don't play in tournaments a lot, but you've got to understand. All people are going to do is figure out what unit from any other codex makes their army even better, and then field that in every single game. This is what the rules allow them to do.

spaceelf wrote:It seems that most people think that ground vehicles are hosed in this edition. Full strength blast and ap1 getting +2 on the chart certainly hurt vehicles. However, if vehicles have 3+ hull points then vehicles with high armor may be stronger than before. Glancing them will no longer make them inoperable in one way or another.

Therion wrote:

Thanks for the summary although all of that has already been known through smaller tidbits. It also once again confirms the fact normal vehicles are much faster to destroy than before because of glances and pens removing wounds and noone having more than four. The only thing in the new rule set I'm particularly worried about is that flyers are too good and I say that as someone who will have atleast 7 in my army list.

Without skyfire they can't be killed efficiently and you know the flyers will destroy every target with skyfire first. Afterall they'll come on turn 2 on a 3+ and fire with everything, and many armies can get re-rolls for reserve rolls or even +1. If you have a squad of Hydras as your only skyfire unit it's like having nothing at all because they'll be destroyed before they ever do anything. What you need is three squads of Hydras and three Vendettas and now you have six units with skyfire to combat the 6+ enemy flyers and still it'll be a matter of who gets to fire at the other guy's flying stuff first. Now, can all armies say the same and have 6 seriously points effective units with skyfire? This same thing applies to the single fortification slot. What good do you think a 225 point Bastion with one Icarus lascannon will do against 1200 points of Necron flyers? Buildings can be destroyed too.

Now what about armies with zero units with skyfire, like standard pattern Space Wolves? Maybe everyone has access to something but even then it probably won't be nearly enough unless you go all out and that's my point. Will the metagame be all about cramming anti-flyer units in your army (flyers themselves qualify as anti-flyer units)? Whoever can get the most of them (Necrons) wins.

Therion wrote:

spaceelf wrote:It seems that most people think that ground vehicles are hosed in this edition. Full strength blast and ap1 getting +2 on the chart certainly hurt vehicles. However, if vehicles have 3+ hull points then vehicles with high armor may be stronger than before. Glancing them will no longer make them inoperable in one way or another.

Glancing a Land Raider four times destroys it.

oldone wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:

oldone wrote:Hey not sure if any else has pointed this out ( haven't read the whole thread ) but on the youtube trailer from Friday they showed a page from the BRB about vehicles, i had a look and paused it at the 1m20s marks (roughly) and notice a list of vehicles:

fast
flyer
heavy
chariot
hover
opened topped
skimmer
tank
transport
walker

Also noticed that flyers scatter 2d6 when destroyed and use the large blast marker causing S6 AP- to units under templates, also models who where inside must be placed within 3" of the center hole or be removed.
Hope that helps =)

Hadnt seen this. It seems air cavalry wont be as popular and what happens to the occupants of an exploded vehicle?

Well i can think of 2 vehicles to go with 2 of the new types, chariot and CCB and monolith with heavy ( in its profile already) so it could see some changes for poeple worried about their land raiders ( another vehicle i would think to receive such a status) =)

All excellent points as to why allies NEED to be taken in any serious 40k tournament.

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:all you have to do is get jammy and then you kill a LR

puree wrote:

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:all you have to do is get jammy and then you kill a LR

What's changed there?

6 to penetrate, 6 to kill, you jammy ******.

My chimera spam guard will still be viable.

Joey wrote:I'm amazed at how many people apparently glance Land Raiders to death. I've never shot at LRs with anything other than melta, lascannons are a waste.

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:

puree wrote:

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:all you have to do is get jammy and then you kill a LR

What's changed there?

6 to penetrate, 6 to kill, you jammy ******.

I'm talking about those S8 Missiles or the Gauss which always glances on a 6, you'd have to get like 9 or 10 glancing hit's to kill a LR if you're lucky because you need to destroy 4 weapons and immobilise it but now it'll be much easier.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Hoping that Heavy vehicles somehow are more resilient than the rumours would suggest so far, as otherwise Land Raiders are going to be pointless, especially versus Necrons.

Therion wrote:

My chimera spam guard will still be viable.

I'm sorry I haven't laughed this good all day.

Joey wrote:

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:

puree wrote:

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:all you have to do is get jammy and then you kill a LR

What's changed there?

6 to penetrate, 6 to kill, you jammy ******.

I'm talking about those S8 Missiles or the Gauss which always glances on a 6, you'd have to get like 9 or 10 glancing hit's to kill a LR if you're lucky because you need to destroy 4 weapons and immobilise it but now it'll be much easier.

Each Krak Missile has a 2/3*1/6 chance of glancing a Land Raider, that's 0.11. To put it another way, if you want to glance a LR to death, you'd need 4/0.11 shots, or 36 shots. Given 4 guys in a LF squad, that's 9 turns of shooting, or 4.5 turns for two squads, assuming no cover whatsoever.
So you can fire two squads of Long Fangs at a Land Raider and blow it up turn 5...if you want to do that, go nuts. I'd rather blow it up turn 2 with melta before its occupants come out and kill me.

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:

Joey wrote:I'm amazed at how many people apparently glance Land Raiders to death. I've never shot at LRs with anything other than melta, lascannons are a waste.

Play against a Necron army, watch him shoot 2 units of warriors at your LR and immobilise it, then scarabs tear it apart.

It has also happened by my friend simply shooting at them with gauss, he has several warriors squads which just turned it into a box.

d-usa wrote:I like the rumored rule that you can only kill as many people in a squad as you can see.

d-usa wrote:I like the rumored rule that you can only kill as many people in a squad as you can see. No more killing a 10 man squad because one persons elbow was sticking out behind a corner.