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.

I find it highly amusing that months before something hits the shelves, everyman and his dog knows almost every detail of the new product, but when we're less than a week away from official release, nobody knows anything!!
This site ain't what it used to be...

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

Even with the new ally rules, you won't be adding 'xenos witches' to a BT force without an errata, since BTs are specifically forbidden from having allies with psychic powers.

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.

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:

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.

Chambers was also the guy who co-wrote Dust Warfare, which seems to be a fantastic ruleset. I don't think the blame can be placed at his feet for GW's current rulesets.

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. If there is disagreement whether something is imbalanced, it's usually allowed. If however people easily realise that something is abusive they simply disallow or change the particular rule for their gaming club or tournament. It's rather pointless to argue about a stupid rule for all eternity when the same fix that's always been used in similar situations will be used again.

We know what the motivations behind the inclusion of allies are, and game balance isn't one of them. Many of the motivations are pure and good, but it doesn't change the fact that circles which are interested in game balance either make artificial restrictions of their own on allies or remove them altogether from their games.

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.

Doesn't really square with the revelation that grenades are now shooting weapons, though.

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.

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....

Ah, the Battle of Fire and Blood. Speaking of that, I wonder what killed off High Marshal Ludoldus. The guy was High Marshal for over a millenium after all.

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.

Yeah, it was up towards the end of 3rd edition... March 2004 (4th edition shipped in October of that year). Scuttlebutt at the time was that he had presented a fully revised 40K ruleset intended to be 4th edition, the powers that be rejected it, and so he left. With later rumours suggesting that his revised ruleset was what he eventually released as the Starship Troopers game from Mongoose. That's pretty much pure conjecture, though.


Given how much of the new ruleset seems reminiscent of 2nd ed, it's entirely possible that he would actually approve...

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.

It's speculation but the most obvious answer considering the word which did come out. It certainly was nothing to do with how he felt about the direction of 40k. Andy Chambers was key in setting 40k on the path of 'rules which sell models'. You can't blame him for that, it was his job. The idea he was anything like Priestley is completely false.

Are people seriously complaining about GW wanting to sell models? Making profit is the cornerstone of capitalism, and therefore all civilisation as we know it.
Seriously, grow up.

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.

Right because it's not like every single unit has grenades, or anything. Overwatch would be pointless if you could only get it vs termies, 'nids and conscripts.

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.

I seem to agree with pretty much everything I see you write insaniak, but I'll have to disagree on these 2 points:

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?

I agree that the rulebook is actually pretty fairly priced, however I don't think video games are a fair comparison.
Games down in price after a period of time (I personally very rarely buy a game upon release) and have a lot of other variables, such as re-playability and multiplayer, which makes a straight comparison difficult IMHO

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.

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?
Whilst I can't understand under what circumstances Daemons would ally with Tau, or why Space Wolves are able to ally with Orks/Dark Eldar, but Blood Angels and/or Black Templars won't?
Additionally, whilst obviously some act as mercenaries and they're not completely stupid, a lot of this seems to go against the Orks typical nature of fighting everyone.

I can understand allowing such widespread alliances, particularly if under the context of a common enemy or greater threat, but there still seems to be a lot of flaws with the matrix, not to comment on it hurting 'nids so badly.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Thanks. the link has been posted many times...we've actually been discussing allies for the past 4 pages or so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Tasty combo..now wait and see if it's legal. Allies of convenience probably applies to all necron ally forces. Or in the case of merc orks, allies of coin-venience.

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)

There is a difference between the two scenarios you're comparing though. You choose specifically to team up with a friend and go 2v2... and usually have the right to say "I prefer one on one games" and almost no one will think anything of it. Yes, the game is a social contract blah blah blah... but refusing to play an army that is completely legal makes you the bad guy just like refusing to play an army which includes blue in its paint scheme or just refusing to play against GK. If allies have no "opponent's permission" type restriction and can be taken willy nilly from the chart, people will take it badly when you tell them you don't want to play against allies. I generally don't have some NBA draft pic of players when I go to the games store and usually only find one or two players unattached to a game when I arrive; refusing to play against them because I don't like the idea of allies forced on me isn't a luxury I can normally afford and I suspect most players don't either. We'll see in 6 months or so how the tourny scene responds to allies and whether or not disallowing them becomes the social norm.

I suspect the vast majority of allies people will encounter on the tabletop will not be borne of some fluff background of the army or campaign story necessity but simply min/maxing the strengths and weakness of the force from two sources instead of the more limited one. Great for GW's bottom line but bad for army balance and player experience in general.

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.

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.

Templars with Dark Eldar eh?

I'm really looking forward to trying out Penitent Engines with Necrons, under cover of darkness. Not sure how good it'll be, but I think along with a Wraithwing they might work. Also, because I couldn't resist:

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.

Thanks for that scintillatingly constructive reply.

You read it here first people, any of us who are disappointed with any aspect of the new edition should just hold our peace and play something else. Heaven forfend that we should <gasp!> analyse and criticise anything...

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.

*It's why I never get angry when people on Dakka constantly remind me "GW is a bsnss and and thay haf 2 maek money.", because I'm just like "Holy crap, I had no idea!"

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

...but a lot of people do, hence the comparison.

To a lot of people, paying up to $100 for a video game is perfectly reasonable (at least here in Oz, the wonderful Land of Expensiveness)... Paying the same for a rulebook that you will get a heck of a lot more use out of seems just as reasonable.

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?

Given that they were created specifically to fight the Necrons, you can as easily argue that it's simply not in their nature to work with them under any circumstances.


Of course, Orks were created for the same purpose, but they're a little less inclined to do what they're told, and a little more likely to fight for whoever promises them some good Krumping.

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.

Dark angels able to ally with the following had dumped a huge turd on my fluff

Chaos...little wtf, suppose it could be fallen
Deamons... huge wtf... cant see this ever eve hapening
Tau... another huge WTF, DA dont ally with abhumans let alone aliens!
Orks... same as above
Eldar... same as above....

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.

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.

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.

Yet funnily enough they felt it was necessary for psychic powers to remain true to fluff, and as a result they exist mainly just for Imperial armies and no one else. But as far as allies go, hell, you can do whatever the feth you want! Herp-a-derp-y-do!

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.

This is rather ironic. If the game is imbalanced, and that is a problem for you, maybe you should consider a different game. For the price of the new rulebook you can buy another game. For example a starting Infinity force costs less that the 40k book, and its rules are free.

There is also the option to play earlier versions of 40k.

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.