Allies can help, but only by crutching the most overplayed and overpowered allies to boost your main detachment. Want to compete at the top? Better get good allies, the same ones everyone else is using, unless you are Eldar or a 40k trendsetter with godlike generalship. And how is that different from any other time the top codex was super prevalent?
Remember 5th ed gray knights everywhere? Allies would be better if they eliminated battle brothers and made the ally units take up choices from the force org. I've never seen a list using allies that filled up its primary detachment FOC as well, most of the common ally detachments could easily fit into the primary FOC without changing it.
I believe the best way to fix the perceived or real issue of allies, is to drop battle brothers to Allies of Convenience, and leave it at that. It would break the power combo, that are currently semi-problematic, and would truly allow for varied armies. I see a lot of people trending towards the idea of changing Battle Bros that you can still count the other detachment as friendly units and can therefore buff, but ICs can't join units from the other detachment. I think that would be the best way to balance some of the combos.
While I can see the logic behind limiting allies to allies of convenience I agree that there should be some characters such as inquisitors who should be allowed to join units from other codices.
I also think dataslate formations should at least take up a FOC slot somewhere such as the Stormwing squadron taking up a HS slot like the IG Leman Russ squadron does so there's at least some opportunity cost. I also think allies, dataslates, etc. Allies suck because of the allies matrix. Every race has access to some kind of mind control powerful psykers, mindshackle scarabs, nid brainbugs, ORKY GUBBINZ, drugs, daemonic possession that you can ally any army with any other army and find a legit fluff reason for it somewhere.
Do away with the allies matrix, let players ally whatever army they like together. If I want that cool model to go with my other cool models, shut up about your fluff justification and take my money, dammit.
Battle brothers cost 2x their points, Allies of Convenience cost1. It allows anyone to ally with anything, encourages people to focus on their own force primarily, but still allows for any level of allies that you could want. More along the lines of happenstance than alliance. I searched the interwebz, and the old rules are nowhere to be found. It could have been an assassination of one of the HQs, vamping or destroying one of the objectives, terrain destruction, or other things.
So whilst it would still be pretty harsh to be paying pts for 7 jet bikes, there's no need to overly dramatise it. Allies are idiotic for one reason: they're based on fluff, not on actual need for them. Do fishheads and eldar need battle brothers?
Do orkses and bugs need an extra hand to deal with top armies? Not necessarilly, but when your oppo combines what's best from two top armies, while your options are, well, severly limited, then things get simply unpleasant.
Would be nice to ally orkses with orkses thou, like the fishheads and SM can. Allies are bad for the game because that particular facet of the rules allows players to circumvent the one modest moderating feature built into army list construction — the Force Organization Chart. Allies give players another means to min-max and get more of a particular desired unit than they'd be able to get ordinarily the Riptide being one of the most obvious offenders, but there are others. Now, this needn't be the case — GW released rules that any idiot should have been able to see would be used for min-maxing.
If players had the option of taking a percentage of their force as allies, but still had to work within the FOC, I would mind that a bit less. Also, from a thematic standpoint, we should not have allies rules that allow two armies to be allied together all the time, regardless of opponent.
Sure, any reasonably clever player can come up with scenarios where it might happen, but the vast majority of the time, Space Marines would murder Tau to the last fishboy before they joined them to raise arms against an Imperial force. So, the Allies matrix should take into account who the allied army would be fighting against. This would make the matrix a tool for thematic games, but useless to the min-maxer, because they would not be able to use it to squeeze more power out of a tournament list.
Astra Militarum — Rules. Tyranid Dataslates Rising Leviathan — Digging through them all. Notify of. Lamb Blasted? Vote Up 0 Vote Down. April 7, PM. April 8, AM. I'm trying to make new things, okay? April 8, PM. April 9, AM. April 9, PM. April 10, PM. Ninja turtles had better rules than 40k does right now.
I think we would all feel better about allies if it wasnt for two main reasons. They're also fundamentally Xenophobic, so the fit is somewhat uncomfortable. They'll do anything if it will help them fight Chaos. The amazing "A wizard did it. They don't call it Deus Ex Machina for nothing, brother ;.
I think allies are great, and agree basically with everupything on the article. Yeah but interceptor can be defeated in its entirety by simply deploying everything. April 11, PM. April 10, AM. The OverLord.
It's not like rules production as a loss-leader isn't common. Think of old Bloodbowl and mixed teams. I agree. Now that would be fun. Despite my obvious slight pessimism for the DA in their pure form, DA as allied detachments for others might be the making of us. For instance Games Workshop might offer an even more expressively 'Dark Angels' Codex to make us worth the bother to ally with.
Or they might not. After all, think of all the additional Codexes and models that could potentially sell on the back of allies experimentation. Perhaps the whole allies thing is just too new and raw yet think clearly about at present, who knows. But I would like to know what your own plans are for your allies, whether that be using Dark Angels as allies within and existing force, or allying your existing Dark Angels with something else.
Comments always welcome. It is worth stating here that as per the BGB the 'Big Green Book' being the 6th Edition rulebook it does quite clearly state that you can't have an allied detachment that uses the same Codex as the main part of the army.
So no, no two Belials or Sammaels running around I'm afraid. I'm surprised that I've seen and heard this being suggested in many places — I'm guessing by those who don't own the new book yet. For me any new edition means a lot of work updating Tacticas, Tech Reports and other articles which is all part of the evolutionary process of the site. This might take some time. There just is not enough anti-air in it. The first tournament to start screwing with the game and not allowing allies and fortifications, is going to see me bringing broken lists of flyers into it.
Yes, I already have lists that will easily take advantage of these rules being altered. The game will break down. People will take ahold of any advantage they can, and when you start re-writing the game, removing parts , you are asking for broken lists Doubling your FOC far outwieghs allied advantages, but allies are still nice.
A more varied game out of codices and the rulebook is what we are dying for, but I know change is hard. I think of us in 5th edition as living within a tightly confined box, and with 6th edition, we can finally break those boundries, tear open the box, and expand our game.
So my suggestion, give it a chance.
0コメント