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.

Ah, Retrohammer mixed in with Herohammer/apoc/Dawn of war for the tabletop. Everything old is new again basically. BUT prices in RT days and 2nd ed were so much cheaper. (2 landraider Mk-I's for 25bucks was awesome!)

adhuin wrote:6th edition has made allies as an official part of the game -> You would be making unreasonable demands on your opponent.

Quite. However, since one is allowed to concede at any time, including before deployment, you can just go "Fine, I've 'played' against you, now go away."

Dysartes wrote:

Vain wrote:...I think his/her point was "If you don't like playing against people with allies, you can always choose to say 'no thanks' to them when they ask for a game."

Forcing them to play as you want, in either direction, would be unreasonable. But removing yourself from a game is not.

That's pretty much what I was getting at, Vain, yes.

There could be social costs involved:

Depends on social event. Random pick ups at the store? Sure choose your opponent based on use of allies, likeability or any other criteria.
Organized play in store -> Probably can get away with it. Ruining gaming night for a person, whose designated opponent you were.
Gaming night at friends place -> Now you're just ruining friends nights. If you do this enough maybe they try fill paired # players without you.

adhuin wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

Vain wrote:...I think his/her point was "If you don't like playing against people with allies, you can always choose to say 'no thanks' to them when they ask for a game."

Forcing them to play as you want, in either direction, would be unreasonable. But removing yourself from a game is not.

That's pretty much what I was getting at, Vain, yes.

There could be social costs involved:

Depends on social event. Random pick ups at the store? Sure choose your opponent based on use of allies, likeability or any other criteria.
Organized play in store -> Probably can get away with it. Ruining gaming night for a person, whose designated opponent you were.
Gaming night at friends place -> Now you're just ruining friends nights. If you do this enough maybe they try fill paired # players without you.

Costs?

Let's look at your scenarios.

Random Pick Ups in a store - if someone is a tit bringing allies and trying to spring them on people then he deserves to get no games. Had a guy here once do it with an armoured company, deliberately trying to get games with Orks and other anti-armour light armies.

Organised play in store/gaming night - Depends on what the rules set in advance are. Otherwise it's a pick up game with That Guy. Doesn't matter otherwise.

Gaming at a friend's place - I should hope you communicate with your friends and make them vaguely aware of things like this and they do the same. To invite you over and go SURPRISE! ALLIES! DERP! is not the sort of thing friends would do in my experience.

As allies (and fortifications) are now an option in creating forces surely saying you don't want to play against someone who uses them is like saying you don't want to play against someone who uses heavy support, fast attack or elite choices?

Mick

DarkStarSabre wrote:Random Pick Ups in a store - if someone is a tit bringing allies and trying to spring them on people then he deserves to get no games. Had a guy here once do it with an armoured company, deliberately trying to get games with Orks and other anti-armour light armies.

The other two points I am fully behind you, this one not so much, but mainly for calling him a tit for bringing allies. That is like calling him a tit for having a Landraider and not wanting to play against him coz you have 0 anti-tank.

Option X is in the rules as a default. You wish to not play him/her because of their inclusion of Option X (for whatever reason, fear, distrust, paranoia, douchiness, legitimate concerns, whatever) that is cool, but far from needing to call them names about it.

Cherry picking opponents however like that Armoured Comp guy, that is bad form indeed.

DarkStarSabre wrote:
Costs?
<snip>
Gaming at a friend's place - I should hope you communicate with your friends and make them vaguely aware of things like this and they do the same. To invite you over and go SURPRISE! ALLIES! DERP! is not the sort of thing friends would do in my experience.

Playing 40k: 6th edition, current codexes, latest faqs. Why would you expect something else?

I don't usually advertise what army I'm bringing. It might be orks, marines, IG and thanks to 6th edition, any legal combination of those.
Only thing you need to agree on beforehand is point limits and its only used to speed up game start and needing to bring only my army, not my collection.

What baffles me the most, is the fixation that everyone as on Allies, wich isn't the worst feature of 6th...

While there is worst things like this damn disembarkment rules and those stupid duels, or the fact that the Faqs where done in a louzy manner...

Mick A wrote:As allies (and fortifications) are now an option in creating forces surely saying you don't want to play against someone who uses them is like saying you don't want to play against someone who uses heavy support, fast attack or elite choices?

Mick

Emphasis mine. Unless you're quite happy for every opponent you face to show up with a Fortress of Redemption and a smug grin on their face.

Whatever happened to placing things on the field because of the way they looked? Whatever happened to the convenience of house rules for people wanting to fire the guns etc. from a building.

Allies is a lazy option, just like purchased fortifications etc. are another lazy option, both designed to do nothing more than grab money. Surely the way forward is not to ignore the holes and weaknesses in various armies by telling them to bring along convenient allies or buying a fortification to counter something they normally can't?!

Oh hey, can't deal with flyers?

Why, buy some Imperial Guard and bring Hydras! Or buy an Aegis Line or Fortress of Redemption!

Oh hey, can't deal with psykers?

Why, buy some Space Wolves and get this Wolf Priest!

Yeah, no.

Sorry, but I don't feel allies and fortifications are anything more than blatant money grabs from GW and an indication they're not going to bother to try and fix glaring holes in certain armies with any form of ingenuity.

seems 6th ediion is showing signs from what I am hearing of something that was being worked on, but then additions and revisions were made and it was rushed out?

Option:
Fortress of Redemption (everyone)
Ally detachment (no tyranids allowed, see rulebook for options)
Squad of Tactical Marines (does not apply to all armies. See codex)
Meltagun (also codex dependant option)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkStarSabre wrote:
Emphasis mine. Unless you're quite happy for every opponent you face to show up with a Fortress of Redemption and a smug grin on their face.

Whatever happened to placing things on the field because of the way they looked? Whatever happened to the convenience of house rules for people wanting to fire the guns etc. from a building.

I woudl be happy. He spends 200+ for firing positions, which I can spend on units.

You still can setup terrain cooperatively, IF your opponent agrees. Same with house rules: IF your opponent agrees.

I've been using Space Puppies for years now, following the logic of some peoples arguments here is it ok for me to refuse to play someone who uses an army with fliers? Puppies don't have any fliers or anti flier weaponry... Perhaps I should just bin my whole army and go for one that has a bit of everything... Or... I can just take some IG allies (Valhalans in my case), which makes perfect sense to me. I know some of the alliance team ups are daft but allies can be used properly in the spirit of the game and fluff.

As for GW putting in rules such as allies to make more money, why are people so suprised about this? They do the same thing with every codex, army book and rules release... (anyway, how many people on here only have one army...?)

Mick

DarkStarSabre wrote:Whatever happened to placing things on the field because of the way they looked? Whatever happened to the convenience of house rules for people wanting to fire the guns etc. from a building.

You have a problem with GW making rules for things you like to do official? Diminishing your ability to do them, instead of enhancing it?

More a problem with blatant sales grabs that very likely indicate that there will be no real effort to creatively balance holes within certain armies to deal with their new shiny things.

Their excuse will be 'Take X, Take Y' rather than taking a step back and realising that Codex A is ridiculous compared to Codex B and why that is so. They won't realise that the Take X, Take Y approach doesn't change the disparity of balance, only increases it for while Codex A can take X and Y to become comparable to Codex B, Codex B can do the same and put itself even further ahead.

DarkStarSabre wrote:Random Pick Ups in a store - if someone is a tit bringing allies and trying to spring them on people then he deserves to get no games. Had a guy here once do it with an armoured company, deliberately trying to get games with Orks and other anti-armour light armies.

Unfortunately, having them as a standard part of the rules means that a random player is no more "springing them on people" than if he happened to take 3 Fast Attack slots. Its now just a normal part of list building no matter how much we don't like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mick A wrote:I've been using Space Puppies for years now, following the logic of some peoples arguments here is it ok for me to refuse to play someone who uses an army with fliers?

You've always had the right to refuse to play someone for any reason (your marines have blue shoulder pads... next player!!)... you just look like a jerk if you actually end up doing it. The same thing will likely be true of refusing to play with allies. I'll be asking my random opponents right away if we're playing a 5th edition 40k style game (1 FOC, no allies) or the mini apoc that GW adopted with this edition (allies, 2 FOC @ 2000pts, and I'm throwing in FW stuff there too).

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Mick A wrote:As allies (and fortifications) are now an option in creating forces surely saying you don't want to play against someone who uses them is like saying you don't want to play against someone who uses heavy support, fast attack or elite choices?

Mick

Emphasis mine. Unless you're quite happy for every opponent you face to show up with a Fortress of Redemption and a smug grin on their face.

Whatever happened to placing things on the field because of the way they looked? Whatever happened to the convenience of house rules for people wanting to fire the guns etc. from a building.

Allies is a lazy option, just like purchased fortifications etc. are another lazy option, both designed to do nothing more than grab money. Surely the way forward is not to ignore the holes and weaknesses in various armies by telling them to bring along convenient allies or buying a fortification to counter something they normally can't?!

Oh hey, can't deal with flyers?

Why, buy some Imperial Guard and bring Hydras! Or buy an Aegis Line or Fortress of Redemption!

Oh hey, can't deal with psykers?

Why, buy some Space Wolves and get this Wolf Priest!

Yeah, no.

Sorry, but I don't feel allies and fortifications are anything more than blatant money grabs from GW and an indication they're not going to bother to try and fix glaring holes in certain armies with any form of ingenuity.

This is pretty much how I feel about all of this too!

We'll see how it plays out in reality, but looking at it now - I can't say I'm a fan.

warboss wrote:You've always had the right to refuse to play someone for any reason (your marines have blue shoulder pads... next player!!)... you just look like a jerk if you actually end up doing it. The same thing will likely be true of refusing to play with allies. I'll be asking my random opponents right away if we're playing a 5th edition 40k style game (1 FOC, no allies) or the mini apoc that GW adopted with this edition (allies, 2 FOC @ 2000pts, and I'm throwing in FW stuff there too).

I think you can do this without being or looking like a jerk.

"I was actually kinda hoping to play a game without flyers, just for a change of pace."

"I forgot to bring my allies...would it be okay if we play without them for this game?"

It's a social game, and a minimum amount of social skill can spackle over any issues. Not that all gamers have basic social skills, mind you.

I've always been of the opinion that the "for fun" gamers care a lot more about winning than the so called "WAAC" gamers because they refuse to play in games that they don't think they can win.

Seriously, not playing against people with allies or fortifications is like not playing against people with melta guns in their list, the game designers put it in the game, who are you to decide someone shouldn't use it?

At first i thought allies were a good way of adding some stuff to fluffy armies, then i played an ork player with GK allies... um ok.
Next I played Tau with SW allies... um ok
Then lastly I played Chaos marines with Deamon allies... ah ha! finally an army that makes sense.

I look foward to fluffy allies, but totally dread WAAC allies list, so far i have refused to play 2k+ games as the group as most of the games i play are against WAAC people (vassal, but not everyone is like this)

Mick A wrote:As allies (and fortifications) are now an option in creating forces surely saying you don't want to play against someone who uses them is like saying you don't want to play against someone who uses heavy support, fast attack or elite choices?

Mick

I'm with Mick on this one.

I could see turning down a casual pickup game. Because if it's not fun for you it's your prerogative not to play.

In organized play you should forced to concede, instead of just refusing to play, to be fair to others. Other players should not be punished for your prejudices.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Mick A wrote:As allies (and fortifications) are now an option in creating forces surely saying you don't want to play against someone who uses them is like saying you don't want to play against someone who uses heavy support, fast attack or elite choices?

Mick

Emphasis mine. Unless you're quite happy for every opponent you face to show up with a Fortress of Redemption and a smug grin on their face.

I'm more happy to see exactly how little Timmy is going to lug said Fortress down to his local GW to play with it every week. Should be good fro a few laughs!

But, yes. making scenery a buyable part of your army in the BASIC RULES SET (not an expansion like Planetstrike) is just stupid and a blatant cash grab IMO. Expansions beyond the norm, fine, then we can have these odd rules, but not here.

Grimtuff wrote:
But, yes. making scenery a buyable part of your army in the BASIC RULES SET (not an expansion like Planetstrike) is just stupid and a blatant cash grab IMO. Expansions beyond the norm, fine, then we can have these odd rules, but not here.

I disagree with this. if anything, my concern with this element is that such scenery needs to be very strongly defined (Specify the shape it occupies, fire slits, mounted weapons, cover saves, etc. and expect modeling to model to this with the rules written that it provides no more and no less) and it needs to be balanced like any other element. In many games purchasable terrain is basically a non-moving vehicle.

Flames Of War has several lists were either light terrain (barbed wire, etc.) can be bought as a bonus to engineers, or where larger pieces like gun pits, turrets, etc. can be purchased. They do some interesting stuff, like a 'defensive' army that is forced into a battle where they can't use their defenses can either swap them for mobile stuff or lose them. It's not an 'every list' option and I don't believe the FoW community finds these lists to be broken, in general. (Happy to hear thoughts from FoW players who have played with/against fortification lists). Fortification armies do look like they could end up a little 'expensive' if a player needs to have the fortification version and the replacement unit.

Heavy Gear Blitz does purchasable terrain as part of the Support Point rules. These are purchases with a second 'currency' (Support Points) not the primary point value (TV). Many tournaments do disallow most support point uses for speed-of-play options, but I've not heard that being able to purchase a bunker (Which has defined sizes and abilities) or a Defense Turret (which has a threatening but not overpowering choice of weapons) is considered broken. Most complain about the other SP uses like air strikes and artillery.

Balance wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:
But, yes. making scenery a buyable part of your army in the BASIC RULES SET (not an expansion like Planetstrike) is just stupid and a blatant cash grab IMO. Expansions beyond the norm, fine, then we can have these odd rules, but not here.

I disagree with this. if anything, my concern with this element is that such scenery needs to be very strongly defined (Specify the shape it occupies, fire slits, mounted weapons, cover saves, etc. and expect modeling to model to this with the rules written that it provides no more and no less) and it needs to be balanced like any other element. In many games purchasable terrain is basically a non-moving vehicle.

Then GW must make terrain for races other than their spoilt rotten Imperial lines. Because ATM all we have is some random rules and a few "guideline" models of what GW has produced. They're leaving it up to the players to decide, which is just lazy rules writing, just like the whole Power Weapon and allies things, they're assuming players won't be dicks about it, and we all know this is inevitable they will.

gorgon wrote:

warboss wrote:You've always had the right to refuse to play someone for any reason (your marines have blue shoulder pads... next player!!)... you just look like a jerk if you actually end up doing it. The same thing will likely be true of refusing to play with allies. I'll be asking my random opponents right away if we're playing a 5th edition 40k style game (1 FOC, no allies) or the mini apoc that GW adopted with this edition (allies, 2 FOC @ 2000pts, and I'm throwing in FW stuff there too).

I think you can do this without being or looking like a jerk.

"I was actually kinda hoping to play a game without flyers, just for a change of pace."

"I forgot to bring my allies...would it be okay if we play without them for this game?"

It's a social game, and a minimum amount of social skill can spackle over any issues. Not that all gamers have basic social skills, mind you.

While I see where you're trying to go, encouraging people to lie isn't exactly the type of social skill I'd advocate. A change of pace would currently be playing WITH flyers since they weren't a core part of the rules... and not collecting allies because you hate the rule isn't forgetting to bring them. Unfortunately, in most cases, these changes are now part and parcel of the standard game.

Grimtuff wrote:

Balance wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:
But, yes. making scenery a buyable part of your army in the BASIC RULES SET (not an expansion like Planetstrike) is just stupid and a blatant cash grab IMO. Expansions beyond the norm, fine, then we can have these odd rules, but not here.

I disagree with this. if anything, my concern with this element is that such scenery needs to be very strongly defined (Specify the shape it occupies, fire slits, mounted weapons, cover saves, etc. and expect modeling to model to this with the rules written that it provides no more and no less) and it needs to be balanced like any other element. In many games purchasable terrain is basically a non-moving vehicle.

Then GW must make terrain for races other than their spoilt rotten Imperial lines. Because ATM all we have is some random rules and a few "guideline" models of what GW has produced. They're leaving it up to the players to decide, which is just lazy rules writing, just like the whole Power Weapon and allies things, they're assuming players won't be dicks about it, and we all know this is inevitable they will.

Definitely. To use an example, there's a chart in the Heavy Gear Blitz rules that says "This is the standard size for a 'Bunker' and lists its armor, dimensions, etc. Froma rules point of view it's a box of that size. The theming is left up to the player.

Maybe its just me but I see a simple solution to this possible problem within their own ruleset. Since the Fortress of Redemption is so much bigger and so many more points than the other standard fortifications, why didn't they say that it counts as two fort slots? That way, you can still use it via the rules in standard games but it gets shunted towards the larger ones (2000pts and up that allow 2 FOC slots with two fort choices) where the other player is likely able to handle them (especially with the 6 FA/HS/Elite choices available).

adamsouza wrote:In organized play you should forced to concede, instead of just refusing to play, to be fair to others. Other players should not be punished for your prejudices.

If you're taking part in an OP event, then you agree to whatever restrictions the organiser decrees.

It suprises me all the complaining about allies. It makes me think that many of those folks never played in 2nd edition.

I just see it as a nod back to the era of the game that made me fall in love with it. It also adds a more challenging aspect to the game. I'm sorry some of your 5th edition lists are no longer the creme de la creme, but new rules, new ways to play the game. Adapt to it. Find ways to make your army work against these new lists, or heaven forbid bring allies of your own to make some interesting combo's.

This edition is a lot more like how I learned to play the game then some of the last few were, and for that i'm happy.

djones520 wrote:It suprises me all the complaining about allies. It makes me think that many of those folks never played in 2nd edition.

I just see it as a nod back to the era of the game that made me fall in love with it. It also adds a more challenging aspect to the game. I'm sorry some of your 5th edition lists are no longer the creme de la creme, but new rules, new ways to play the game. Adapt to it. Find ways to make your army work against these new lists, or heaven forbid bring allies of your own to make some interesting combo's.

This edition is a lot more like how I learned to play the game then some of the last few were, and for that i'm happy.

I started in 3rd. I don't have any problem adapting armies to new codicies and editions but I have a problem with allies as I've played impromptu games against them in 3rd-5th (two friends show up with partial armies each and want a game... and you're the only other opponent) and disliked pretty much every game. It's worse when the two forces are under the control of the same player as they're synchronized perfectly in tandem which doesn't happen when two players control them. Call me old fashioned but I like the idea that an army has a weakness that you need to consider when playing or playing against them... with allies, those weaknesses are taken care of. Tau and IG suck at close combat? Take some allies from the absolute best CC armies in the game! Not my thing but since it's a part of the standard rules I'll have to live with it for the next 4-5 years in most cases.

djones520 wrote:It suprises me all the complaining about allies. It makes me think that many of those folks never played in 2nd edition.

It surprises me that no-one remembers there was no Internet back when 2nd ed. was in its heyday, thus no cookie cutter netlists, which is the crux of many of the issues regarding allies.