6th ed - taking the pulse of the community

[Refyougee]

Hey all,

I haven't touched 40K in a little bit in favour of other avenues, but all this talk of 6th ed has me interested and asking myself a couple of questions. The main one is a question I want to, in turn, submit to the community.

It seems Allies are becoming real in a big way for 40K. Reading popular sites has me running into a whole gamut of opinions. Which is great. But I want to gauge that of local players before anyone else's.

So, in all honesty, who here is down with Allies? How about tourney organizers?

[Desc440]

Hate it for game balance reasons. For fluffy, scenario-driven missions, it's great, but it should never have been part of the core rules.

I hope GS doesn't allow them in lists.

[Mael]

I don't know yet since I haven't read the whole rules. The possibility for abuse is certainly present though. ( Thunderwolf cavwith FnP and Furious charge is an easy exemple). The thing is, again, the marines get the better part of the cake. They have what, 5 or 6 codexes and they are all close allies so they can benefit from one another's bonuses. However, most of the other races have uneasy alliances with the other races so their bonuses don't overlap. Meaning, marines get it all and the rest suck face.

[Twinlinked]

given the rumors,

I wouldn't be surprised if tourneys limit or don't allow, flyers, allies, purchased terrain. but i imagine this will depend on the rules them selves once they come out,

I'm sure no tourney organizers will make any decisions based on rumors,

A.

[Orbital]

Hate it for game balance reasons. For fluffy, scenario-driven missions, it's great, but it should never have been part of the core rules.

I hope GS doesn't allow them in lists.

The only thing that's tricky (and I'm just shooting from the hip, here... we haven't even BEGUN to discuss it): We can sometimes create constraints to make the game more fair, but we can't actually change the game itself. People are there to play 40k and, whether it's broken or not, we can't make it into the game we "like". It has to be the game that GW makes and sells.

Obviously, we'll tell you more once it's actually out... but I'm not sure what'll happen at GS yet.

[Desc440]

I understand that point of view, Corey. Either way you guys will go will be fine, I will adapt. I just think that allowing allies will just create an even bigger gap between the competitive armies and the more casual ones.

[Orbital]

I understand that point of view, Corey. Either way you guys will go will be fine, I will adapt. I just think that allowing allies will just create an even bigger gap between the competitive armies and the more casual ones.

There are a bunch of things about the 40k rules that I think are stupid and broken and need fixing. Alas, I don't change them for the GS tournaments, because if I do then people (rightly) complain about it not being the game they came to play.

But yes. In a perfect world, I'd make some HUGE changes.

[Desc440]

Well, the core rules of 5th were pretty alright, all in all. Its the codexes that were all over the place. In 6th, the core rules themselves look like they will lead to massive cheese.

[BlaineThPain]

For friendly/fluffy games I can see it adding a bit of a change.

As a Necron player, I'm a little disappointed there no forces for me to share a strong (or whatever word they used for it) alliance with as that could have been fun to add some depth to my army. (It would have given me an excuse to pick up some models I might not have otherwise..)

I think it would have been nice to see a more in depth chart detailing some of the interactions that the major SM chapters without a dedicated codex have had in the the background.

I can't see it working for tournaments though.

[Crablezworth]

Hate it for game balance reasons. For fluffy, scenario-driven missions, it's great, but it should never have been part of the core rules.

I hope GS doesn't allow them in lists.

+1