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.

Therion wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:

Therion wrote:

Tyranids allying with Tyranids means that they might finally be able to use all those Elites choices in some capacity.

Haha, that's great Can three or four armies ally? I guess you could take duplicates of the same special character this way too.

As long as they aren't unique, sure. I imagine things like that will still apply.

Can anyone explain to me what's the point of a FOC then? I mean, Necron Overlords in CCBs are pretty good now and seemingly insanely good in 6th because of all the buffs they're getting, but I get to take only two of them. So, to get around that I only need to ally with another Necron detachment and now I have 4 HQ choices as long as I take 3 troop choices. I also get access to 6 units of Wraiths and other garbage. Is this the new 40K?

That or they will make detachments have to be from completely separate codices.

Speaking of which, CCBs are flyers? I never saw that when i glanced over their rules.

Therion wrote:So, to get around that I only need to ally with another Necron detachment and now I have 4 HQ choices as long as I take 3 troop choices. I also get access to 6 units of Wraiths and other garbage. Is this the new 40K?

I am pretty sure that is not the way it will work.

You will be able to take allies within the current FOC, so only 2 HQ total, 6 troops, etc.

Brother SRM wrote:Tyranids allying with Tyranids means that they might finally be able to use all those Elites choices in some capacity.

Hi! This is my Brood of Red Aliens. They like to evolve wings to take the fight to the enemy really fast! They use 90 gargoyles! These are their allies, the Blue Aliens! They like to evolve wings as well but only on big aliens. They have 27 Shrikes! Each faction is led by a Tyranid Prime and they both have 2 squads of 20 gaunts for troops.

TBD wrote:

Therion wrote:So, to get around that I only need to ally with another Necron detachment and now I have 4 HQ choices as long as I take 3 troop choices. I also get access to 6 units of Wraiths and other garbage. Is this the new 40K?

I am pretty sure that is not the way it will work.

You will be able to take allies within the current FOC, so only 2 HQ total, 6 troops, etc.

So basically the entire point of the allies rule set is to merge all the unit options in IG, BA, SW, GK, SM, etc. into one Codex: Imperium. That's nice, completely balanced, and totally fair for all the non-Imperial players. It will also make tournaments very interesting. There's like a huge civil war going on the Imperium! Armies filled with GK, BA, SW and supported by Hydras and Vendettas are killing other armies filled with those exact same guys! We can call it Jervis Johnson Heresy.

Quick, everyone panic before all the facts are in!

Scottywan82 wrote:Quick, everyone panic before all the facts are in!

Well, it's now or never, isn't it? There probably won't be a reason anymore once we know everything

There are just so many things that can go wrong I can't imagine it going right.

Quick, everyone panic before all the facts are in!

Facts aren't in untill the 30th of June most likely. We're simply discussing the rumours as they've been presented. Currently there's plenty of reasons to be disappointed.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Scottywan82 wrote:Quick, everyone panic before all the facts are in!

Well, it's now or never, isn't it? There probably won't be a reason anymore once we know everything

This book cannot come out soon enough. Seriously.

You guys have drawn a lot of conclusions with little to no information.

Therion wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:

Therion wrote:

Tyranids allying with Tyranids means that they might finally be able to use all those Elites choices in some capacity.

Haha, that's great Can three or four armies ally? I guess you could take duplicates of the same special character this way too.

As long as they aren't unique, sure. I imagine things like that will still apply.

Can anyone explain to me what's the point of a FOC then? I mean, Necron Overlords in CCBs are very good now and seemingly insanely good in 6th because of all the buffs they're getting, but I get to take only two of them. So, to get around that I only need to ally with another Necron detachment and now I have 4 HQ choices as long as I take 3 troop choices. I also get access to 6 units of Wraiths and other garbage. Is this the new 40K?

Follow the money. I hazard to guess that the allies rules are at least partially there to drive model sales. It's becoming pricier for newbies to own multiple armies (and GW knows this), but adding a few units from another army is both desirable and more affordable.


Regarding the rest of the rumors, the thing I really want to learn more about are 1) movement and 2) mission objectives. I thought they were where pancake really shined. Seems like we aren't getting one-phase movement (boo!) but I at least hope Fleet adds inches in the move phase rather than staying another random roll. And turn-by-turn objective scoring did a lot to get units out of their armored boxes. Guess we'll know soon.

We already agreed on banning both the terrain and allies rules.

For pretty damn obvious reasons.

There's plenty of theoretical and unsubstantiated reasons to be disappointed.

This thread is a perfect example why GW doesn't have their own forum!

The problem is, its pretty easy to see one conclussion. There are more dice to roll this edition.

The next logical conclusion is... rolling more dice means more things fail. You don't add dice rolls to see successes. You add dice rolls t make things NOT happen. You roll to hit. You roll to wound. You roll to save. You roll to chargen. You roll for powers. All of these rolls are.meant to make sure what the player wants to happen does NOT happen. In other words, to make it so a players strategy means little compaired to his dice. And I think we can all agree, is a bad thing.

Here's what was said about the allies rule by someone who saw the rulebook on Warseer (for reference):

Allies are IN: As had been suspected, a new army chart will report the level of cooperation various armies can have. This will not allow cherrypicking of valuable units from another codex, but instead the ability to integrate a second FOC chart into you army from the selected ally. How deep you can develop this second tree (beyond the mandatory HQ and 2 troops) is determined by what level of cooperation the armies have on the chart.

Basically it does look like it's a second FOC chart. It also seems like you have access to the various slots based on how deep the cooperation is (unlikely allies, trusted brothers etc. whatever). I'd assume every army is on the highest level of cooperation with itself. Therefore you get to use two FOCs if you just take atleast one HQ from each, two troops from one and one troops from the other. Basically if you were using two HQs and three troops already nothing changed except you can go up to 4 HQs, 12 Troops, 6 Elites, 6 FA and 6 HS.

Follow the money

Of course. Both the allies and the terrain rule stinks of young kids fighting eachother with every model that they own whether they're from the same book or not.

Well, if this is fluff based, it's going to favour the IoM and Chaos, and screw over the Xenos (of course.).
Because that's what 40K needed more of! IoM dominance!

(cue person telling me the game is "about" the IoM in 3,2,1...)

Therion wrote:Basically it does look like it's a second FOC chart. It also seems like you have access to the various slots based on how deep the cooperation is (unlikely allies, trusted brothers etc. whatever). I'd assume every army is on the highest level of cooperation with itself. Therefore you get to use two FOCs if you just take atleast one HQ from each, two troops from one and one troops from the other. Basically if you were using two HQs and three troops already nothing changed except you can go up to 4 HQs, 12 Troops, 6 Elites, 6 FA and 6 HS.

Nope. Still making unfounded assumptions.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Therion wrote:Basically it does look like it's a second FOC chart. It also seems like you have access to the various slots based on how deep the cooperation is (unlikely allies, trusted brothers etc. whatever). I'd assume every army is on the highest level of cooperation with itself. Therefore you get to use two FOCs if you just take atleast one HQ from each, two troops from one and one troops from the other. Basically if you were using two HQs and three troops already nothing changed except you can go up to 4 HQs, 12 Troops, 6 Elites, 6 FA and 6 HS.

Nope. Still making unfounded assumptions.

Yes, it's a rumor thread. You're doing the same by assuming he's wrong.

Dr Mathias wrote:There's plenty of theoretical and unsubstantiated reasons to be disappointed.

This thread is a perfect example why GW doesn't have their own forum!

They used to have one and it was the worst thing ever. Forums in general are pretty bad but the GW one was a special sort of horrible.

I'm not really worried about the ally rules until we get a better look at them and if they're that bad my club will probably just not use them. What I'm really interested in is the new psychic system, what the new powers are and who gets them, I really hope my Primaris Psyker gets access to something interesting.

Here are my thoughts on 2D6 assaults:

I'm a proponent of random charging, but I really wanted it to be Set Value + Xd6 so that it ended up being a healthy spectrum of guaranteed charges, surprise failures, and long-shot payoffs.

So when I read today that it was evidently going to be 2D6 flat, my initial reaction was disappointment, and agreement with the idea of a nerf towards assault.

But.... well... now I'm not so sure.

In WHFB the penalty for a failed assault distance roll is clear. You must forsake your regular movement in order to declare a charge, so you've passed up the option to reposition. Then when you fail the charge you must move forward a given number of inches, so you may be drawn into a bad position.

However, none of the rumours indicate that the same thing is true in 6th edition 40K. Today's batch indicates that move -- shoot -- charge is still the event order, so even when you fail to make contact with an assault you will have moved already in the movement phase.

There's no suggestion of a failed charge advance, and iirc, in current 5th edition 40K, a failed charge just means that the unit stands still.

So if that stays the same in 6th, a failed charge won't pull you out of position. The main upshot of the change will be that assault armies can start declaring charges earlier in the game, hoping for good rolls. This would seem to be a boost to assault armies, since at least some of the time your units will be getting into contact earlier than they would have in 5th.

The only times it will hurt are those moments when you're within 6" of the target and get a low roll. But this will likely be offset by that fact that you've already had more opportunities to execute long charges in these games than you would have had in 5th edition games.

I've been playing WHFB for the last two years, so my 40K knowledge is rusty. Am I missing something here?

Goresaw wrote:The problem is, its pretty easy to see one conclussion. There are more dice to roll this edition.

The next logical conclusion is... rolling more dice means more things fail. You don't add dice rolls to see successes. You add dice rolls t make things NOT happen. You roll to hit. You roll to wound. You roll to save. You roll to chargen. You roll for powers. All of these rolls are.meant to make sure what the player wants to happen does NOT happen. In other words, to make it so a players strategy means little compaired to his dice. And I think we can all agree, is a bad thing.

We cannot agree. Strategy is all about risk management. Risk is the chance of failure. Therefore, without the possibility of failure, there is no strategy. Even the board game Diplomacy, which has no dice, has elements of randomness. Having greater randomness doesn't break the game, it chanes the game. Apparently in a way YOU (and others, I assume) do not like. Not in a way NO ONE likes.

I'm curious to see how casualties are removed from shooting attacks with indirect fire blast templates. My initial assumption is that it will be the same way that we do it now rather than pulling models from the edge of the unit closest to the firer.

spectreoneone wrote:

ThePhish wrote:Your assault becomes a gamble.

As it rightfully should be, IMHO. It could definitely help my Tau, that's for sure. Nothing like that group of Orks stopping dead cold a couple inches from my gun line... Then again...that squad of SS/TH Termies just huffed it an additional 11" to take on my armor...I think it'll balance itself out in the end.

Joke post?

ShumaGorath wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

Therion wrote:Basically it does look like it's a second FOC chart. It also seems like you have access to the various slots based on how deep the cooperation is (unlikely allies, trusted brothers etc. whatever). I'd assume every army is on the highest level of cooperation with itself. Therefore you get to use two FOCs if you just take atleast one HQ from each, two troops from one and one troops from the other. Basically if you were using two HQs and three troops already nothing changed except you can go up to 4 HQs, 12 Troops, 6 Elites, 6 FA and 6 HS.

Nope. Still making unfounded assumptions.

Yes, it's a rumor thread. You're doing the same by assuming he's wrong.

I'm not assuming anything, other than that we don't have enough info yet to draw up ridiculous army lists.

Therion wrote:

TBD wrote:

Therion wrote:So, to get around that I only need to ally with another Necron detachment and now I have 4 HQ choices as long as I take 3 troop choices. I also get access to 6 units of Wraiths and other garbage. Is this the new 40K?

I am pretty sure that is not the way it will work.

You will be able to take allies within the current FOC, so only 2 HQ total, 6 troops, etc.

So basically the entire point of the allies rule set is to merge all the unit options in IG, BA, SW, GK, SM, etc. into one Codex: Imperium. That's nice, completely balanced, and totally fair for all the non-Imperial players. It will also make tournaments very interesting. There's like a huge civil war going on the Imperium! Armies filled with GK, BA, SW and supported by Hydras and Vendettas are killing other armies filled with those exact same guys! We can call it Jervis Johnson Heresy.

Eldar, Tau and Necrons should be able to be allies to eachother and most Imperial forces just fine (force X finds common ground to fight with force Y for reason Z, you know how GW spins such things), but Orks, Dark Eldar, Tyranids and Daemons will have probably have much more restrictions.

I suspect this will be more of an advantage to certain armies while some will indeed get shafted (Tyranids the most, most likely). We'll have to wait for the specifics in the book.

spectreoneone wrote:

ThePhish wrote:Your assault becomes a gamble.

As it rightfully should be, IMHO. It could definitely help my Tau, that's for sure. Nothing like that group of Orks stopping dead cold a couple inches from my gun line... Then again...that squad of SS/TH Termies just huffed it an additional 11" to take on my armor...I think it'll balance itself out in the end.

Yeah so random range for assult range and then my opponent can snap fire. I really wish I had not bought and painted all those wracks. My coven list is hosed due to no armour save, chance of not getting to assult, then getting shot if they do make it. Thank god for FNP...oh wait they nerfed that too for them. I wonder how the rules will work when assulting from a vehicle now?

Scottywan82 wrote:

Goresaw wrote:The problem is, its pretty easy to see one conclussion. There are more dice to roll this edition.

The next logical conclusion is... rolling more dice means more things fail. You don't add dice rolls to see successes. You add dice rolls t make things NOT happen. You roll to hit. You roll to wound. You roll to save. You roll to chargen. You roll for powers. All of these rolls are.meant to make sure what the player wants to happen does NOT happen. In other words, to make it so a players strategy means little compaired to his dice. And I think we can all agree, is a bad thing.

We cannot agree. Strategy is all about risk management. Risk is the chance of failure. Therefore, without the possibility of failure, there is no strategy. Even the board game Diplomacy, which has no dice, has elements of randomness. Having greater randomness doesn't break the game, it chanes the game. Apparently in a way YOU (and others, I assume) do not like. Not in a way NO ONE likes.

You can't manage risks that you can't control or interface with. Randomized leader traits, randomized reserves, stealing the initiative, items like randomized possessed traits, etc. Not all randomness is good.

Risk management implies that you can control the outcome and can voluntarily engage in risks. It doesn't imply that all acts possess inherent risks and that choices must be reactionary based on the results of default risk. When the choice to take a risk is removed then it's not a risk/reward scenario. If there isn't a "safer alternative" then it's just a scenario with a random outcome.

Risk/reward =/= base level unavoidable randomness. Risk/reward = deciding to engage in a randomized event that has a possible positive outcome. Random charge distances are the former. I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand this.

Praxiss wrote:The terrain part is something that will almost definately be ignored in my gaming group. We struggle to afford army models, let alone expensive building and terrain.

Sigvatr wrote:We already agreed on banning both the terrain and allies rules.
For pretty damn obvious reasons.

Yeah, you both play shooty armies that suck in close combat

That is completely untrue. Have you not been managing risks in 40k up to now? Did it not include dice rolls? Saying they are unmanageable is completely false.

ShumaGorath wrote:
You can't manage risks that you can't control or interface with.

A risk you can control isn't a risk.