Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mysterious woods and Eldrad everywhere!

They probably will wait to know what the rules actually are before saying anything!

MasterSlowPoke wrote:They probably will wait to know what the rules actually are before saying anything!

Yeah, this. It's a little premature to make calls like that before we know what the rules are in the first place...

You guys haven't read the rules yet?

What they've said already.

There will be good arguments for disallowing allies and terrain, and good arguments for allowing them.

The biggest difficulties will be things like using the short table edges for deployment (ridiculous for numerous-table tourney play), and what terrain (if any) to allow in the fortifications FOC (i.e., it's probably not going to be practical to let people bring Fortresses of Redemption).

Allies are too soon to tell what can be taken and how it will effect things.

I wouldn't be surprised if the rules were that you can't take SCs as allies(so no Eldrads or Draigos running around)


That would be the best way IMO. You get some of the goodies without the super specialness some codices can do.

olympia wrote:You guys haven't read the rules yet?

You mean the one picture of one chart with no context or clarification?

olympia wrote:You guys haven't read the rules yet?

Little tough since no one will have the book until at least Thur/Friday of this week.

Reading a battle report in White Dwarf doesn't really convey 'rules'.

mikhaila wrote:

olympia wrote:You guys haven't read the rules yet?

Little tough since no one will have the book until at least Thur/Friday of this week.

Reading a battle report in White Dwarf doesn't really convey 'rules'.

Which is why this question is better asked once we all have a copy of the rules. It doesn't do any good to ponder the pros and cons of allies in tournaments when we have no clue how the allies rules will work.

I've got access to a rulebook if you guys have any questions. I thought other people did too. I'll just say this...watch out if you roll a 6 for your Mysterious Wood!

So without giving away anything you aren't supposed to, what do you think of the allies rules olympia? This is one of the things I'm most looking forward to in sixth edition.

olympia wrote:I've got access to a rulebook if you guys have any questions. I thought other people did too. I'll just say this...watch out if you roll a 6 for your Mysterious Wood!

How exactly does allies work? Any limits on stuff? Who gets to ally with whom?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

olympia wrote:I've got access to a rulebook if you guys have any questions. I thought other people did too. I'll just say this...watch out if you roll a 6 for your Mysterious Wood!

How exactly does allies work? Any limits on stuff? Who gets to ally with whom?

This - a solid list of the ally matrix would be really cool to know.

I think what most Armies will do is use the allies to address their weaknesses. For example, Orks will probably use Defilers etc to address the problem of not being able to deal with Armour effectively.

I guess olympia could, if he's permitted, clear this up, but I reckon Allies will work on a "Mini-FOC", preventing you from taking too many Elites etc. It could even be a Fantasy-like system, ie, you must spend half of your points that you spend on Allies on Troops.

Just my thoughts.

I got a different question, is the FoC still in place or has it been replaced with %s?

FOC's still in, as far as I understand it you're allowed to take one allied detatchment outside of your "normal" FOC. If you want to take allies you have to take 1 HQ and 1 Troops choice from the allied book, presumably to stop cherry-picking. Once that's done you unlock one of each other slot from that book.

^ That sounds reasonable. As lng as they do disallow SCs, then it sounds ok to use.

I do like the new psychic powers so blood angels can now have vortex of doom....does anyone know what warp charge is?

Olympia wrote:You guys haven't read the rules yet?

Olympia wrote:I've got access to a rulebook if you guys have any questions. I thought other people did too.

Could this thread be made with the express purpose of subtly 'neener neener-ing' dakka's general populace with your access to a rulebook rather than genuine interest in the posed question?

That's a bit uncalled for, TiB. I'd rather have discussion than not have it, particularly if some folks already have access to the book.

Preordered it today, I can start commenting intelligently late Friday night

We can not answer the question when everyone has no idea what the rule is.

My guess is that every TO will allow terrain and allies since it is part of 6th edition.

Anyone else concerned that Fortress of redemption is only 220pts... Thats seems a bit cheap for a huge indestructible +3 coversave with dual las cannons.

orkdestroyer1 wrote:I do like the new psychic powers so blood angels can now have vortex of doom....does anyone know what warp charge is?

I suspect that warp charge is how many psychic powers the spell counts as.

I.E. if you don't upgrade your librarian to an epistolary (mastery level 2) then he cannot use a Warp Charge 2 power because it counts as too many psychic powers.

Blackmoor wrote:We can not answer the question when everyone has no idea what the rule is.

My guess is that every TO will allow terrain and allies since it is part of 6th edition.

+1

So, am I hearing this right? There is talk that the new rules allows players to pay points in order to be able to include specific pieces of terrain?

Tangent wrote:So, am I hearing this right? There is talk that the new rules allows players to pay points in order to be able to include specific pieces of terrain?

Yeah they've added a "fortifications" slot to the FOC (0-1). Aegis defense lines are cheap (stated in white dwarf to be 45 points, with a lascannon it bumped to 65 points), all the way up to a Fortress of Redemption (which was listed at being 220 points, but that's probably before weapon upgrades).

tetrisphreak wrote:

Tangent wrote:So, am I hearing this right? There is talk that the new rules allows players to pay points in order to be able to include specific pieces of terrain?

Yeah they've added a "fortifications" slot to the FOC (0-1). Aegis defense lines are cheap (stated in white dwarf to be 45 points, with a lascannon it bumped to 65 points), all the way up to a Fortress of Redemption (which was listed at being 220 points, but that's probably before weapon upgrades).

Wow. I really hope it's balanced...? I feel stupid for even thinking that.

How is that supposed to be regulated? You can make your own terrain, call it an Aegis, and then pay 45 points for it? Terrain is too varied for this to work, right?

Tangent wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:

Tangent wrote:So, am I hearing this right? There is talk that the new rules allows players to pay points in order to be able to include specific pieces of terrain?

Yeah they've added a "fortifications" slot to the FOC (0-1). Aegis defense lines are cheap (stated in white dwarf to be 45 points, with a lascannon it bumped to 65 points), all the way up to a Fortress of Redemption (which was listed at being 220 points, but that's probably before weapon upgrades).

Wow. I really hope it's balanced...? I feel stupid for even thinking that.

I'm of the opinion that every cheesy tactic can be thwarted in one manner or another. With all the 'cinematic' elements of 6th edition (sidenote: the word "cinematic" was used about once every 4 pages in this month's white dwarf....think they're trying to send a message?) i'm sure there will be tons of avenues to pursue a game that ends up in an enjoyable experience.

The problem with tournaments of any variety (40K, WarmaHordes, MtG, etc) is that the players often forget they're playing a GAME and treat it like a SPORT. In a game of dice and plastic, skill only goes so far. But....that's not everyone's view on the matter.

And whats wrong with that?

There is plenty of space to have fun while playing a sport.

Any game should be played to win. Winning is more fun then losing. But you can still have fun even if you lose.


There is still skill in wargames. As long as there is skill required the game can be played competitivly. Its not for everyone of course, but people are different.

Grey Templar wrote:And whats wrong with that?

There is plenty of space to have fun while playing a sport.

Any game should be played to win. Winning is more fun then losing. But you can still have fun even if you lose.


There is still skill in wargames. As long as there is skill required the game can be played competitivly. Its not for everyone of course, but people are different.

Okay, agreed. Playing sports, is fun when you're winning. However in every game except for those nail biting draws, there is a loser. And the sporty players having fun, end up compounding the losing players not-fun. If 2 competitive players go head to head and one gets dogstomped or housed, or pwned, or whatever term you like best for losing horribly, a lot of those sports-minded players do not take it well. They make a scene, cuss, accuse people of cheating, etc.

NOT everyone is like that, i know. But for me to even bring it up, and I hope others echo this sentiment, there are more of them out there than should be. And that group of players does ruin the fun for people who come to just have a good time win-or-lose.