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.

Allies are are not a new thing - they have been in the game before.

they are not the main problem IMO

 Alpharius wrote:
That's a good point - I rather enjoyed 40K 4th and 5th.

6th, not so much.

I'm the opposite really. Hull Points, wound allocation and not being able to assault out of stationary vehicles all grind my gears, but I'll take them over the game's most boring edition (4th Ed) or the game where you can kill things out of LOS and range (5th). 6th was "not too terrible" enough to get me back into the game (though that new 'Nid Codex is making a good argument for me to leave again) and I want to continue playing it.

I don't think 40K is broken as such, but more in a place where GW doesn't know what to do with it. They’re flailing in the dark when they need to knuckle down and take a good critical look at their game. They need to strip away the fat – part of the reason I wouldn’t mind a 6.5 edition book that includes elements of Strongpoint and Escalation – and realise that the barriers to entry have become too high.

Zothos wrote:

Remember when people actually read the Lord of the Rings and knew that elves did not show up at Helms Deep? Oh, you saw the movie!

As I have stated before, allies are fine in a special scenario. They should never have been opened up for anything else.

Not going to lie, I only got into the third picnic of the Fellowship before I stopped reading it. Regardless, the movie tells a decent tale and the battle still works as an example.

I just don't see why it would be needed to be limited to scenario games. I mean a scenario where two forces join sides to stop an enemy from claiming an ancient alien McGuffin works just as well in the Relic as it would in a scenario. Unless the scenario strictly calls for a limited FOC, which is what I was suggesting in the first place really.

Zothos wrote:

BaalSNAFU wrote:

Zothos wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Allies is a good idea though. It allows the slow build up of a secondary army and adds a bit of flavor.

However the key thing lacking in the current allies set up is moderation. To me allies should have been limited to something like the Tau Firebase dataslate (though a lot less... everything wrong with that). Basically if they had a specific detachment available and a list of what armies could purchase it.

It's not perfect, but it's a big step away from being able to cherry pick the best units and avoiding any of the downfall.

No, that's not good, people should be able to use models they like, not just one specific combination on a dataslate.

This was already discussed in other thread, but most problems with allies would vanish, if allies of convenience would be the bets ally level available. Allies themselves is not the problem, it is the battle-brothers creating ungodly buff combinations that is the problem.

No. Allies ARE the problem.

They are fine in a special scenario or something of the like. But in general use they are silly beyond reason.

Armies should have strengths and weaknesses. Not strengths and strengths.

I disagree that people should be able to bring what they want. Unlimited choice is not a good thing. It is the limitations which force hard choices and hence, better gaming.

I think what you are overlooking is that the absolutly craptastic external balance between codexes is what necessitates allies, I'd say... about 80% of the time. The other 20% are WAAC type players wanting to double-down on strengths, and people like that will be around with or without allies.

I am not overlooking that. Nothing makes allies "necessary" except that GW wants more money. My point is that allies do nothing to alleviate the problem and in fact makes that 20%, as you say, even more douchey.

No.argument here. It was a blatant cash grab, but it could have expanded the game for the better. Unfortunately the implementation was akin to a monkey fething a football with the silly matrix and battle brothers. However in the current state of affairs where we have match ups like BA vs Tau in Hammer and Anvil, most people are willing to ignore all of the above in hopes of improving their gaming experience. If there was.a.reasonable external balance between the codexes I have no doubt that allies would be viewed much the same way as escalation where the vast majority would be more than willing and able to see it/ call it out for being what it is and refuse to play with it.

Because marines and tau teaming up to fight the Tau menace is stupid?

Because Necrons and Chaos vs. Anything is stupid?

Because Necrons and Marines are stupid?

Always astounding these conversations are.

Stop being so "astounded" by everything and instead try to make a counter-argument.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Stop being so "astounded" by everything and instead try to make a counter-argument.

I have been making counter arguments all along.

I can be astounded by what I like.

Stop being a troll, and instead, try having a point to your post.

I think it's sad that every single army has allies (Except Tyranids of course. The purpose to their existence is to emphasise the power of allies). Is noone else nostalgic about the times when Eldar still fought against Space Marines, and we didn't have some triple book armies vs double book armies every game? The tournament games (large or small scale) were played with a single codex per army for two decades. That's a lot of tournaments and a lot of happy customers. Then GW in their infinite wisdom ended that, and also brought in fortifications and superheavies.

Imbalance between army books has always existed, but every army still had a weakness of sorts to exploit. Allies remove all weaknesses, and dataslates just push that even further since GW is adamant in removing the meaning of the FOC and codex limitations altogether. D weapons on the other hand remove the meaning of toughness and armour values etc.

In short the 'play anything you want' approach does work when two friends play against eachother with friendly armies, picking units for both armies together in an attempt to make an even game. It doesn't work for any other type of game.

Considering the 'play anything you want' approach between two best friends was always available to them for casual games, I've yet to see a good reason why 'play anything you want' was made a core rule and design priority of the game. The only explanation is the burning of all bridges, integrity and balance in an attempt to sell guys with complete armies an extra unit or two. It has a negative value since it drives more people out of the game than what income it brings in.

 Zweischneid wrote:
I think the summary is a good one, but the sequencing is probably off.


The financial report shows numbers running up to December 1st. It doesn't include the time of Escalation, crazy Christmas datasheets, etc.. .

They are, more probably, a reaction to the mess they saw coming over the past year.

The time period that shows the poor performance covers, roughly, the Eldar Codex, the new Apocalypse, the Space Marines Codex and some Fantasy stuff, most notably the massive overhaul of Dark Elves. That was, by 6th Edition standards, not yet the crazy time of Lord of War-slots and tank-hunting Riptide-formations for everyone.

The same 6th months the year before, when GW did so much better, included the Ork Flyers, a little Daemons-wave (Plaguebearers, Blue Scribes), 40K 6th Edition, Dark Vengeance and the CSM Codex.

At least, some voice with reason appear, i didnt read the financial report, becuase i know nothing about finacial and economics or manage of big companys, like lots of people, so i dont want to give a vacum opinion to reflect some nerd rage, instead i want to ask, in the report appear the invesment make by the company, becasue to have an giant and huge update like we have right now, with all the codex getting an update that mean lots and lots of money, and when you have a giant spent like this one its mean you gonna have a huge losses over some time, this kind of losses (when you make a giant invesment) are spected and to recover in short term (lets said 6 months more less)

Zothos wrote:
Because marines and tau teaming up to fight the Tau menace is stupid?

Because Necrons and Chaos vs. Anything is stupid?

Because Necrons and Marines are stupid?

Always astounding these conversations are.

Yes, those combinations are stupid and ally matrix is silly. However:

Space Marines and Imperial Guard fighting side by side is not stupid.

Craftworld Eldar hiring Dark Eldar raiders to help them kick some mon-keigh but is not stupid.

Chaos Marines summoning some Daemons is not stupid at all, it is in fact massively fitting an appropriate.

40K is a game. Everything should be looked at first from the angle of whether it works well to make a good game.

Space Marines and IG fighting side by side isn't stupid in terms of fluff but if it is stupid in terms of game balance it should not be allowed.

Tau + Eldar isn't stupid in terms of fluff, but from what I have read it wrecks game balance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
40K is a game. Everything should be looked at first from the angle of whether it works well to make a good game.

Space Marines and IG fighting side by side isn't stupid in terms of fluff but if it is stupid in terms of game balance it should not be allowed.

Fluff appropriateness is part of a good game.

Tau + Eldar isn't stupid in terms of fluff, but from what I have read it wrecks game balance.

Only because they're battle brothers. Making them allies of convenience would solve most of the WAAC problems, but would still allow people who like to ally for the sake of the fluff to do so.

Fluff appropriateness is part of a good game.

The official stand point on fluff right now is that anything is possible , all fluff is smoke and mirrors propaganda , even if the two sides fighting are nids and demons etc. The only constant in w40k fluff is no female space marines and that is it . Everything else is not only possible , but totaly fluffy.
Necron and marines ? happened in BA dex. the GK traded tech with the necron to get tessaract vaults .
The marines on the tau side fighting the rogue farsight maybe fallen , they work as mercs in the fluff and they work for anyone . Imperials , non imperials , xeno etc.

Chaos +necron . Easy mode. Necron tomb world got invected or is being infected by the obliterator virus , and the necron are either chaos friendly but not fully turned or they work with the chaos dude , so they take away their virus . Ah and let us not forget that those necron could be chaos androids , those weren't retconed out of the fluff and they look exactly like necrons only with chaos star motifs added.

etc etc etc.

Bad fanfic does not good fluff make.

Once again, for a special scenario, do what you want. For the game as a whole? It is an abomination.

What do you mean fanfic . All of it comes from GW own books . BA codex , GK codex , the fluff about fallen working as mercs is common too . Chaos andriods had their own models in RT and were mentioned in fluff in 2ed . And fluff about anti AI is there , because of the whole android rebelion thing that happened before the age of strife.

The there is no cannon thing , other then no female space marines was said more then one time by writers from BL and GW more then one time . In WD , articles , blogs etc.

Most of that fluff read like bad fanfic.

My apologies, I should have been more clear in my earlier response.

The things you refer to do exist in fluff, that does not mean we should see it in every game.

No apologies needed my friend . I dislike w40k fluff in general.

Also if GW wants us to play with what we want and how we want. And they even base their whole our rules are the way they are , because we want people to forge the narrative and stuff like that . So if GW thinks that stuff like FW , multi shot D weapons under 1501 pts games are cool and fun . Then there shouldn't be a barrier to run someones orcs with necron ally , specialy when the rules say that someone can .

How can GW break something that was never truly functional? Do people even remember 2nd edition? This game has always been poorly written and even more poorly balanced. If anything, I'd say it's the player base that's finally breaking, specifically their ability to deny that there was ever a problem. Playing 6th edition without house rules is insane.

The problem is that the game should be balanced to allow for winning via strategy and tactics, and instead it revolves around gimmicky/cheese lists. Someone who picks an army they like the look/fluff for and builds a thematic army is going to get stomped by the "Take 3x of the most powerful unit" armies. Nobody is going to want to pick a cool army and then enjoy losing every single game they play because they don't want to go the cheeseweasel route.

Same thing applies to WHFB - the game should be balanced and the winner is whomever is the better general, not whoever has the most elite troops or biggest gimmick unit.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
That's a good point - I rather enjoyed 40K 4th and 5th.

6th, not so much.

I'm the opposite really. Hull Points, wound allocation and not being able to assault out of stationary vehicles all grind my gears, but I'll take them over the game's most boring edition (4th Ed) or the game where you can kill things out of LOS and range (5th). 6th was "not too terrible" enough to get me back into the game (though that new 'Nid Codex is making a good argument for me to leave again) and I want to continue playing it.

I don't think 40K is broken as such, but more in a place where GW doesn't know what to do with it. They’re flailing in the dark when they need to knuckle down and take a good critical look at their game. They need to strip away the fat – part of the reason I wouldn’t mind a 6.5 edition book that includes elements of Strongpoint and Escalation – and realise that the barriers to entry have become too high.

You forgot Metal Box and Transport hammer (5th) where Razorback style and Vehicles ruled.

As a newer player It's a bit overwhelming, we went into the store today to get my first stuff and a lady helped me with what all I'd need. I was under the assumption of just getting a few boxes of crons, some paints and brushes, and the glue. Yet low and behold she started packing on books so quick I felt like it was the first day of college all over again.

 Juicifer wrote:
How can GW break something that was never truly functional? Do people even remember 2nd edition? This game has always been poorly written and even more poorly balanced. If anything, I'd say it's the player base that's finally breaking, specifically their ability to deny that there was ever a problem. Playing 6th edition without house rules is insane.

1) Funny name and a fantastic avatar! I haven't seen you before now, so, welcome to Dakka Dakka!
2) I don't know about 40K never having a good, functional ruleset...

I liked 5th, and with a few changes and tweaks, it would have...it could have become something truly epic...

Maybe!

More whining about the Tyranid codex.

No, 40k isn't any more broken than it's always been.

You didn't read the thread, did'ja Mel?

I read the first post. If you have a problem with me responding to the fist post, I'm under no obligation to give a gak.

Having played since the middle of second edition...

[I can't remember if the Chaos Termie with Heavy Flamer, or Reaper Autocannon, had JUST come out...]

I can say that I really enjoy 6th edition, in it's basic format. Two guys with single FOC, single codex armies is quite fun and easy enough to wrap my head around. Even allies don't bother me too much, and have encouraged me to start a second army, since I can play with them as I build them up. [IG with newly added BA]. I played a lot of 4th and 5th, but found the games grew stale rather quickly. Especially 5th, where the metagame locked up sooooo quickly and with so few missions to play? Highly repetitive.

There are rules in 6th that I find poorly designed, like the "Hard to Hit" rules for flyers and "D" weapons. Both ignore key elements of models that are critical to their pricing. Same value to hit, even though you're a better shot? I wreck a Land Raider just as easily as a Rhino? Two rules that just ignore the internal balance of the game. That said, I'd say that the rules are reasonable for the most part. They're fun. They still encourage strategy while at the same time being random enough to require tactical flexibility.

Best thing is that the game has shifted to a primarily shooting game, and less, "Hey, have you got a Power Fist? Forget our Lascannons, jump in a Rhino and flat out to that thing in front of you, and punch it! Punch it again! And again! Yay, we won!"

All of the extra books feel like a cash grab, to me. I didn't like the "expansion" books the last time, and I dislike them even more now. They're things that should be in the basic codex. When you need to release a supplement for "Black Legion", the Ultramarines of Chaos, something went wrong. I don't mind the Stronghold Assault, though I think it could have been folded into the main rule book. From my initial glances at Escalation, D weapons could be fixed with a couple of house rules. I've already seen tourneys do that in SW Ontario. [S10, AP1, D3 wounds / HP, most recently]

Really, my GW hasn't changed any since these new, "game breaking" changes have dropped. I'm not a regular tourney goer, though. I enjoy the challenge of that level of play, but I tend to build strong lists anyhow. All without resorting to triple this or that. [You only play ONE Vendetta?] It is a game for two or more players. Even if I were inclined to venture into Escalation or Stronghold, which I'm not really, I wouldn't mind playing the "standard" version of the game if my opponent preferred. That's what my GW is telling people. Bring two lists if you want to play with the new rules. One with goodies, one without.

I find it unfortunate that it seems GW is pricing new players out of the game. I've been playing long enough that I've seen units double or even triple in price, so I find it tough to encourage young folks to dive in, when it is so expensive. The only positive I can point out, is that the value of models never drops. There will always be guys with guns and tanks to play with. Unless they get Squatted. I find 6th edition refreshing, and I have just chosen to not get wound up in needing to have "everything".

I can't help but feel that a closed and open beta test/serious playtesting in house would improve the game by leaps and bounds. Much of the excess bloat could be trimmed away for the game to run smoother and with less ambiguity in the rules.

It would require a small staff of dedicated GW PR people and a core of beta testers, but it would help with every facet of the game. I'm just doubtful they'd ever invest the time in building up such a team to engage with the community.

Spartan Games have done this, and Firestorm Armada 2.0 is leaps and bounds better than 1.0 or the interim 1.5 rules. Its amazing what can be accomplished when the community can help and participate with the game.

I don't think inhouse play-testing is going to solve anything. It needs to be pushed outwards. Let someone who cares about writing rules write the rules - someone like FFG.

Well, if we read what Rick Priestly said in my sig, its pretty obvious GW stopped caring about the game and how its played.

Its like movies that are made to make money vs movies that are made to tell a story. It's an art form to tell stories and the second art is done for money as the 1st priority then the soul and love is gone.

Life is too short to spend in bad relationships, GW lives and breathes on our money, and the contempt and malice their give back to us is unbearable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think inhouse play-testing is going to solve anything. It needs to be pushed outwards. Let someone who cares about writing rules write the rules - someone like FFG.

The Nid dex had a design studio and 7 play testers (they even printed their names in the dex!) and it some how got passed them.

Which is why you have to do what every local call-centre employee hates to hear: Outsource! Outsource! Outsource!