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.

botobeno wrote:I'm sorry if it's been said already, this topic grows too fast to read it all. I'd like to throw this in the group because it's way at the back in the rulebook. Missile launcher got a third rocket to fire. Pg 415 in the new rulebook, in the weapon overview. str 7 AP 4 skyfire heavvy 1. It gives the missile launcher a massive boost in usefulness, it's triple purpose now. Group, single target/vehicle, flyer. You can put one in most of your squads (15 pts except in heavvy weapons team) and/or on the walkers (10 pts). With all the 'omg there are going to be so many flyers now' i'm guessing IG will spam missile launchers in response, hydra can only do snapshots against things that arent air.

If only it were true. The flakk missile is listed as an upgrade, and no codex nor FAQ has included it yet. So although it's listed in the book, no one is using it yet.

Well, it isn't stricly listed as an upgrade, but it does say only some missile launchers have it.
Actually, has anyone bothered to ask gw if any armies have flakk missiles?

Matt.Kingsley wrote:Well, it isn't stricly listed as an upgrade, but it does say only some missile launchers have it.
Actually, has anyone bothered to ask gw if any armies have flakk missiles?

Yes, look in the GW Studio Open Day thread in the News and Rumors section.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/462603.page#4531765

Open the spoiler in Kroothawk's OP and read the additional bits near the bottom after he talks about Mat Ward.

No flakk missles for any army yet, but they are coming in the new codices.

Woop-dee-doo, so the next imperial 'dex (or csm dex) will prob have flakk, and no one else? Damn...

Matt.Kingsley wrote:Woop-dee-doo, so the next imperial 'dex (or csm dex) will prob have flakk, and no one else? Damn...

Yup, and since CSM appear to be coming soon....

Well, at least I play csm...
Still, poor guard...

Well even if Guard get flak missiles, I'd doubt people will take them over just getting more vendettas

Assuming they dont nerf the heck out of them next time around

If there is a next time around

Matt.Kingsley wrote:Well, at least I play csm...
Still, poor guard...

IG doesnt need them. We have Vendettas (str 9 instead of str 7) and hydras (same strength but ignore jink)

While you don't need them, 3 ML is cheaper, and can do Anti Inf, Tank & Fly

Matt.Kingsley wrote:While you don't need them, 3 ML is cheaper, and can do Anti Inf, Tank & Fly

Until they FAQ it, or release another codex, NOONE HAS FLAKK.

And IG is cheap enough to specialize. They can take lascannons, and HB (although I prefer AC) squads to focus on specific targets.
That's one of the upsides of IG.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:Well, at least I play csm...
Still, poor guard...

IG doesnt need them. We have Vendettas (str 9 instead of str 7) and hydras (same strength but ignore jink)

Matt.Kingsley wrote:While you don't need them, 3 ML is cheaper, and can do Anti Inf, Tank & Fly

I can see the merits of both Vendettas and missle launchers. Some folks just don't want the flyers. Their reasons vary from cost, to army fluff, to space/model transport limitations, to avoiding in-game accidents when someone knocks or grabs a Vendetta off the table (those things are kid magnets ). Some folks just don't like to build vehicle models (yes, it's true!), though that seems anti-thetical for an IG player.

I plan to use some of both along with autocannons. My 2000 point list can fit two Vendettas, eight autocannons, and four missle launchers as well as a lascannon HWT. I'm sure many other IG players can spam even more HWTs and Vendettas by going with fewer and cheaper HQ and Heavy options.

botobeno wrote:I'm sorry if it's been said already, this topic grows too fast to read it all. I'd like to throw this in the group because it's way at the back in the rulebook. Missile launcher got a third rocket to fire. Pg 415 in the new rulebook, in the weapon overview. str 7 AP 4 skyfire heavvy 1. It gives the missile launcher a massive boost in usefulness, it's triple purpose now. Group, single target/vehicle, flyer. You can put one in most of your squads (15 pts except in heavvy weapons team) and/or on the walkers (10 pts). With all the 'omg there are going to be so many flyers now' i'm guessing IG will spam missile launchers in response, hydra can only do snapshots against things that arent air.

You don't get Flakk Misssiles automatically. It's an upgrade option that you need to purchase. So far there isnt an option for anyone to actually make this upgrade so no, IG doesnt get them for free.

JB wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:Well, at least I play csm...
Still, poor guard...

IG doesnt need them. We have Vendettas (str 9 instead of str 7) and hydras (same strength but ignore jink)

Matt.Kingsley wrote:While you don't need them, 3 ML is cheaper, and can do Anti Inf, Tank & Fly

I can see the merits of both Vendettas and missle launchers. Some folks just don't want the flyers. Their reasons vary from cost, to army fluff, to space/model transport limitations, to avoiding in-game accidents when someone knocks or grabs a Vendetta off the table (those things are kid magnets ). Some folks just don't like to build vehicle models (yes, it's true!), though that seems anti-thetical for an IG player.

I plan to use some of both along with autocannons. My 2000 point list can fit two Vendettas, eight autocannons, and four missle launchers as well as a lascannon HWT. I'm sure many other IG players can spam even more HWTs and Vendettas by going with fewer and cheaper HQ and Heavy options.

I will definitely be keeping hold of my missile launchers (which I got in a joblot sale) for when (of 'if'!) they get these flakk missiles! It would make them much more worthwhile because they'd immediately become more versatile. But right now, the most versatile weapon for me is still the autocannon, especially now it's 3 glances=dead vehicle (unless it's an Land Raider).

As for spamming heavy weapons....Wow, only 8 autocannons in a 2000pt list? Makes my feel I have gone a bit overkill with my 13 autocannons (one being the Quad Gun), 6 lascannons and a missile launcher in my 1500pt list! ....That's with Creed in the CCS, 2 Leman Russ's and a Manticore too! ....Add a Vendetta, 6 plasma guns and Marbo to all that at 2000pts and on reflection I can definitely see i've gone with maximum dakka with 6h edition!

kenshin620 wrote:Not to mention it is also once again showing GW's affinity for imperium, they after all tend to get the most amount of battle brothers.

You mean the guys that fight together in the books, the games and all the other fluff written over decades get to ally together easier?

Ailaros wrote:Allies won't increase the number of waac gamers, but it will certainly reveal them.

Yes, there are lots of flffy ally things, and will probably partake myself on occasion over the course of this edition. The limit to allies in the fluff world is one's imagination.

However, tactically speaking, allies makes a mockery of game balance. There are going to be lots of crazy combos people figure out over the next couple of years, and my bet is that tournaments will be decided by who brings the most broken combination of allies, rather than who has the best codex. You're already seeing this with suggestions to put space wolf characters into guard blobs to keep power blobs viable, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Be prepared for hideous ally abuse. Anyone who really, really wants to win is going to need to follow suit as this meta really takes off. As such, allies will reveal the true characters of the players who take them.

Given that 6th ed, over all, discourages competitive play, this will only be made more painfully obvious as the years progress.

I think this is only a knee jerk reaction to allies, and not what will actually happen. Will there be some allies in WAAC lists? Sure. But most of the emerging 'power' lists (Necron flyer spam, IG flyer spam, flying circus, ork biker nobs) have very little to gain from allies or already avoid them. And yes, I realize the irony in declaring power lists so early in a new edition, but I would be surprised if at least some of these armies don't give strong tournament presences.

Instead, I think you're neglecting a huge area for balance - that is, the allies systems allows aging or underpowered codices to have access to the more powerful units and round out their armies. All of a sudden SoB, Tau and other 'bottom tier' armies can now shore up a lot of their weaknesses, without those players having to entirely give up the army they've grown to love.

kir44n wrote:
I will disagree with the general giist of your statement here.

As was stated before, previous editions largely came down to whomever had the strongest codex . I think THIS was a far worse culprit for ruining game balance than allies will be. I mean, how many new Grey Knight players showed up when GK got their new 'dex and turned into the ridiculously powerful new kid on the block?

What allies change does is allow Games Workshop to stop pretending to be "balancing" their codex's between each other. Now they can just say "shore up your armies deficiencies with allies".

And allies lets us do just this. Imperial guard has ONLY mastery level 1 psykers at this point. With how powerful some of the new psychic abilities are, this kind of sucks (especially when nids can take army lists full of the damn things). Now instead of being limited to Primaris and psycho squad, we can also pull in some nice allied librarians. Or alternatively we can address our close combat concerns with spess marines (Belial and terminators, or generic strong arm stuff with SW or BA). Oh, and as a last aside on pyskers, why in the world would IG psykers need the Biomancy tree? Really? Iron arm or Endurance for a toughness 3 psyker? Waste of space.

So, I'm going to go against the grain of what everyone else is saying, and say that taking allies isn't a sign of powergaming, but as a way to shore up Games Workshops deficiencies for failing to give everyone equally balanced codexes and making the game "Newest Codex Wins" under no-allies conditions. So instead of everyone playing variations of the most broken lists ever(tm), we'll have dozens of different "most broken lists ever(C)", each doing a different thing.

This. I've personally grown sick of the "newest codex wins" syndrome, and allies will put a dent in that at the very least.

IG doesn't need an allied detachment in 6th ed. IG works just fine with or without allies. The same can not be said of other armies, especially armies short on fliers. I see MEQ armies needing IG for vendettas and a hydra more often than an IG army would want a MEQ allied detachment.

schadenfreude wrote:IG doesn't need an allied detachment in 6th ed. IG works just fine with or without allies. The same can not be said of other armies, especially armies short on fliers. I see MEQ armies needing IG for vendettas and a hydra more often than an IG army would want a MEQ allied detachment.

Does it not depend on the army?

If I am fielding 50 grey hunters and 20 wolf guard in a 1500 point list, do I care of my opponent is picking off a few each turn with flyers? I have so many troops its just not an issue.

While some MEQ armies will feel the burn without flyers, I think you will lots of them which just won't care.

schadenfreude wrote:IG doesn't need an allied detachment in 6th ed. IG works just fine with or without allies. The same can not be said of other armies, especially armies short on fliers. I see MEQ armies needing IG for vendettas and a hydra more often than an IG army would want a MEQ allied detachment.

Agreed. I don't think it's a "Must" for IG when it comes to allies. Although, I'm not sure about how the new psyker push could affect things.

labmouse42 wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:IG doesn't need an allied detachment in 6th ed. IG works just fine with or without allies. The same can not be said of other armies, especially armies short on fliers. I see MEQ armies needing IG for vendettas and a hydra more often than an IG army would want a MEQ allied detachment.

Does it not depend on the army?

If I am fielding 50 grey hunters and 20 wolf guard in a 1500 point list, do I care of my opponent is picking off a few each turn with flyers? I have so many troops its just not an issue.

While some MEQ armies will feel the burn without flyers, I think you will lots of them which just won't care.

I also am wondering if flyers aren't getting a little too much worry. They are what they are.

kir44n wrote:
...why in the world would IG psykers need the Biomancy tree? Really? Iron arm or Endurance for a toughness 3 psyker? Waste of space.

Actually, i've found the Primaris Psyker really useful with the Biomancy powers - (potential) S6/T6 with a force weapon and 5 attacks on the charge? Had that in my last game and split the Psyker off to go munch through a Grey Hunter squad on his own. Bam.

I'm a fan of Telepathy myself. Psychic Shriek is hilarious. It's not good on its own, but coupled with a PBS, it lays waste.

bogalubov wrote:How are "auto-include" options from a single codex any worse than taking cheesy "auto-include" options from other codexes?

On the surface, they're similar, but allies really are worse.

Firstly, to the idea that it will make old codices better, really it will only make old codices even more one-dimensional. For example, one could make the argument that there really isn't a reason to take straken or ogryn when you could include grimnar and a bunch of termies or draigo and a bunch of paladins.

Secondly, to the idea that it makes GW have to care about game balance less, I'd agree, and think that it's a bad thing. Why need to go to the effort of balancing a codex, when your players will just ignore your mistakes and play one of the omni-lists out there?

But it's more important that this, balance-wise. Regardless of balance between codices, GW actually does a pretty decent job of making stuff balanced within its codex. Eldrad is really good, expecially for his points, but that's because he's stuck in the eldar codex. In the past, you could only give fortune to some guardians or whatever. Now, you can give fortune to paladins, which is just sick. Remember how everyone cried cheese when lash sorcs/princes came out? Remember when eldrad came out? Remember all those "how do I deal with mephiston?" threads? Remember all the hate about draigo? Now imagine that all that cheese is no longer contained within the airtight jar of its own codex, but can now be slathered on basically anything.

Which brings me to the heart of my statement about WAAC players and allies. Back in the day, if you wanted to create the most powerful list you could, and a new codex came along that was OP compared to the rest, you'd have to start a new army to be able to take advantage of the poorest balanced new parts of the game. When GK came out, you had to actually make a GK army in order to field a draigowing. Now, when the next cheesy thing comes out, people will just dust off a couple old minis from a different army, or maybe buy just a couple new minis and now they have instant cheese sauce.

If you thought that the army-of-the month meta was bad, get ready for allies, as they will make this problem much worse. If you thought that there was balance problems in 5th ed, get ready for allies, as you will now be able to pick the strongest parts out of other armies without any of the drawbacks of their codex as a whole. If you thought it was bad that everybody was playing the same list before, get ready for allies, as before you were at least stuck with just units from your own codex, while now we're going to see the most powerful stuff in the game show up in every competitive list that can field it.

Basically, all of the meta-stuff that people complained about in 5th ed just got a lot easier to abuse in 6th with allies. Certainly, nobody has to abuse anything, but the barrier of entry for abuse just went way, way down.

Which is why I said that allies won't create any waac gamers, but it will certainly reveal them.

Well, I have always loved thousand sons, and am going to add Arhiman and 1-2 squads of thousand sons into my 2000 point lists. It will be very expensive and probably not all that effective, but i think it will be awesome and will boost my psychic abilities in game, i dont think it many will consider it very WAAC as spending 500-750 points in a guard army that isnt big guns hurts.

alarmingrick wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:While you don't need them, 3 ML is cheaper, and can do Anti Inf, Tank & Fly

Until they FAQ it, or release another codex, NOONE HAS FLAKK.

And IG is cheap enough to specialize. They can take lascannons, and HB (although I prefer AC) squads to focus on specific targets.
That's one of the upsides of IG.

I know, if you read the post before hand someone was saying EVEN IF THEY DID, vendettas would be better

kir44n wrote:
...why in the world would IG psykers need the Biomancy tree? Really? Iron arm or Endurance for a toughness 3 psyker? Waste of space.

Acutally, Endurance would be great to cast on a big blob, if you're still using them. Last week I lucked out and rolled Enfeeble, which allowed my lasguns to completely wreck some Marine squads.

Ailaros wrote:Firstly, to the idea that it will make old codices better, really it will only make old codices even more one-dimensional. For example, one could make the argument that there really isn't a reason to take straken or ogryn when you could include grimnar and a bunch of termies or draigo and a bunch of paladins.

Wrong. Allowing more options in no ways makes a codex more one-dimensional - it's the opposite. Taking ogryns, for example, allows you to have your allies slot open to pursue another unit choice. Again, choices means more army variety. Just compare space marine lists now to ones from 3E, back when there were only 2-3 options per slot.

Ailaros wrote:But it's more important that this, balance-wise. Regardless of balance between codices, GW actually does a pretty decent job of making stuff balanced within its codex. Eldrad is really good, expecially for his points, but that's because he's stuck in the eldar codex. In the past, you could only give fortune to some guardians or whatever. Now, you can give fortune to paladins, which is just sick. Remember how everyone cried cheese when lash sorcs/princes came out? Remember when eldrad came out? Remember all those "how do I deal with mephiston?" threads? Remember all the hate about draigo? Now imagine that all that cheese is no longer contained within the airtight jar of its own codex, but can now be slathered on basically anything.

Unless I'm missing something, Eldrad can't cast Fortune on Paladins, as Eldar and GK are Allies of Convenience. A lot of the rumored power combos turned out to not work, and I've yet to see one that was actually game-breaking. The best I've seen is mixing DE and Eldar psykers, but is currently very rules questionable and still not one of the best deathstars out there anyways.

Ailaros wrote:Which brings me to the heart of my statement about WAAC players and allies. Back in the day, if you wanted to create the most powerful list you could, and a new codex came along that was OP compared to the rest, you'd have to start a new army to be able to take advantage of the poorest balanced new parts of the game. When GK came out, you had to actually make a GK army in order to field a draigowing. Now, when the next cheesy thing comes out, people will just dust off a couple old minis from a different army, or maybe buy just a couple new minis and now they have instant cheese sauce.

If you thought that the army-of-the month meta was bad, get ready for allies, as they will make this problem much worse. If you thought that there was balance problems in 5th ed, get ready for allies, as you will now be able to pick the strongest parts out of other armies without any of the drawbacks of their codex as a whole. If you thought it was bad that everybody was playing the same list before, get ready for allies, as before you were at least stuck with just units from your own codex, while now we're going to see the most powerful stuff in the game show up in every competitive list that can field it.

I disagree entirely. WAAC players, by their very nature, are going to WAAC. That may sound redundant, and it is - those kinds of players were already going to buy the new armies anyways, so adding the allies system doesn't effect them.

Now, Joe casual can buy up a few of those units if he really feels obliged and not feel left behind.

Your posts about the allies system come across as very 'sky is falling'. I'd adopt a wait and see kind of approach - so far the end hasn't happened yet.

Ricter wrote:Again, choices means more army variety.

Not in this case.

In the world of competitive 40k, codices boil down to just one or two good lists, while most everything else is ignored. Furthermore, there are just one or two "good" armies at any given time that everybody flocks to. In a positivist world, most competitive people want A. ONE. THE. army to field.

Diversity used to be enforced by codex. This has now been weakened. I mean, imagine that they said that you could always just field whatever unit from whatever codex you want. No restrictions other than points. Would that make more lists out there, or would it make it so that there was one list that was the most powerful and everybody would just flock to that one list if they want a chance to win a game?

Everything I've seen from competitive 40k players over the years points to the latter, not the former. Of course, this example is extreme, but any step taken in that direction is a step towards netlisting run amok.

Ailaros wrote:

Ricter wrote:Again, choices means more army variety.

Not in this case.

In the world of competitive 40k, codices boil down to just one or two good lists, while most everything else is ignored. Furthermore, there are just one or two "good" armies at any given time that everybody flocks to. In a positivist world, most competitive people want A. ONE. THE. army to field.

Diversity used to be enforced by codex. This has now been weakened. I mean, imagine that they said that you could always just field whatever unit from whatever codex you want. No restrictions other than points. Would that make more lists out there, or would it make it so that there was one list that was the most powerful and everybody would just flock to that one list if they want a chance to win a game?

Everything I've seen from competitive 40k players over the years points to the latter, not the former. Of course, this example is extreme, but any step taken in that direction is a step towards netlisting run amok.

Competitive 40k? Variety? You mean like in this tournament ( http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/04/24/tournament-circuit-adepticon-championship-results-and-lists/ ), where 8 of the top 16 were all from the same codex? Look around at past tournaments - variety at the top in competitive gaming is generally rare. I really think you're just looking back with rose colored glasses.

So far you've just talked in circles without bringing up any actual evidence and your only support is hyperbole and sky is falling. Your argument only holds IF the players had the actual capability of taking every unit they wanted. But there's two important restrictions you're ignoring with this assumption - points and FoC. You simply can't take everything good, because you don't have the slots nor the points. Further, by taking allies, you're at a mandatory 2 HQ and 3 Troops, further limiting what 'good stuff' you can take (granted, some HQ and Troops are the good stuff). Also, with the additions of flyers and ramping up of psykers as a serious threat, this means that it is much, much harder to make a list to beat all comers.

Anyways, back on topic. I've been considering running a PBS with a telepathy primaris psyker for the obvious synergy. Has anyone tried this in game and able to comment on its effectiveness? I saw a lot of theory several pages back. Further, everyone seems to suggest not putting the psyker with the PBS. Is there some obvious reason for this that I'm missing? Seems if you want them both to aim at the same target, might as well put them together in the first place.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:While you don't need them, 3 ML is cheaper, and can do Anti Inf, Tank & Fly

Until they FAQ it, or release another codex, NOONE HAS FLAKK.

And IG is cheap enough to specialize. They can take lascannons, and HB (although I prefer AC) squads to focus on specific targets.
That's one of the upsides of IG.

I know, if you read the post before hand someone was saying EVEN IF THEY DID, vendettas would be better

Okay. I'm an idiot.
My bad.

Ricter wrote:Competitive 40k? Variety? You mean like in this tournament ( http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/04/24/tournament-circuit-adepticon-championship-results-and-lists/ ), where 8 of the top 16 were all from the same codex? Look around at past tournaments - variety at the top in competitive gaming is generally rare.

Which is exactly my point.

Top competitive gaming eschews variety. Weakening the codex system weakens one of the systems in place that promotes diversity. Allies will make less variety.

@Ricter
Oh yeah, the reason if I recal correctly is that the PBS weaken resolve power is LOS and cannot be used out of a transport anymore.
While
The Primaris Psyker can use his power out of a transport it is only range 12".

So having your PBS hiding behind a ADL or something going to ground if need be then getting ordered "Get Back in the Fight" to zap Ld while your primaris psyker is rolling up in his chimera (behind another tank or 2) to finish them off.

Edit: clarification: The "Oh yeah" wording is not to sound snooty or anything just say it like the cool-aid guy and you'll get it.

Another model I'm looking at, especially with 6E changes, is Straken.

He clocks in 35 points cheaper than a space marine captain with similar gear, avoided the power weapon nerf, and has +2 str vs -1 WS, 1 BS, -2 I, -1 LD. That's ignoring him still being a senior officer, granting fearless instead of ATSKNF, counter-attack and furious charge. He only has a 5++, though.

Seems like a good surprise challenger. Of course, he doesn't really have a squad to back him up, though.