Should TOs Ban Allies? Hmmmm...

[Chris Copeland]

We were having a discussion at my club the other night. Should Allies be allowed in tournaments? I heard a couple of club members take the position that if a rule is in the book, use it. I come from a different mindset: follow the *Most Important Rule*. GW has a longstanding tradition (going back to Rogue Trader) that essentially says, "It's your game. These are your models. Do with them what you will. Have fun."

So I have no problem with a TO implementing a House Rule. If a TO puts together a tourney and says, "You may only use painted models" then bring painted models if you want to play in THAT tourney. If he says, "No allies," then come packing an army without allies if you want to play in that tourney.

I have a friend who plays Tau who is not a fan of comp scores. I am a fan of comp scores. We might have different takes on attending a tourney that was heavily influenced by comp scores (but I doubt it, my buddy mostly just wants to game with his friends).

I am a fan of an approach that says, "This is a particular type of tournament. Come play it if you care to. If not, we'll see you at the next one. Cheers." For example: I'd REALLY like to play in a "Come Painted or Don't Come at All" tourney. I think that would be the bee's knees. It wouldn't appeal to everyone AND it wouldn't be supported by any rule in the rulebook... but it would appeal to me and many people like me. From my point of view, it wouldn't disenfranchise anyone. Some folks would start painting like mad, some would just say, "Eh, I'll wait until the next one," and some would show up with bells on having chosen an army that they already had ready to go.

I am making an analogy. Implementing a house rule such as "No Allies" is directly analogous to "Come Painted or Go Home" when it comes to tournies. Not every tourney caters to every kind of player. We are too diverse a crowd for that.

Dear TOs: thank you for all the hard work you do and for running our tournaments. We all really appreciate it! I suggest you run your tournies any way you like... I'll be there! Cheers. Copeland

[Charistoph]

Personally, I can see local tournaments easily setting it up according to their meta.

But for the big ones (Feast of Blades, 'Ard Boys, Etc) I would be surprised if they did ban them this year. Next year will largely depend on how this next year goes. I also wouldn't be surprised if ETC is already compiling a list of "legal ally models".

As it is, there will be people who bring illegal or insufficient lists because they don't understand how it works/read it on the internet that way.

[isotope99]

Well not straight away. Maybe in 6-12 months when things have settled the picture will be clearer.

[Deadlift]

Would these TO organisers be GK and SW players ? :)

[Tynskel]

okay, everyone.
Buy a 'Jump to Conclusions Mat', and hop away!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRxqY4wuTHw
(there might be a 'bad' word in there...)

[Chris Copeland]

Well, sure... it's all just speculation now. Speculation can be fun!

[Diagnosis Ninja]

Ban Allies? You might as well ban dice.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

I like how so many people know games design better than professional designers, especially when they're talking about rules they haven't even seen yet. Just wait and see.

[Tepogue]

The rules havnt even been officially released. I don't see any problems with allies at this time.

Based on the rumors. 1 hq and 1 troops is required. That eats up points before you can get to the more desirable units, Long Fangs or Purifiers. And if no special characters are allowed to be allied, then it's even less of a concern.

To me as a modeler this now opens up huge fields of possibilites

Adeputus Mechanus - IG & SM or IG and Chaos
Genestealer Cult - IG and Orks
Iron Warriors - Chaos and IG, say hello to my cultists and basilisk
Alpha Legion - see above
Old chaos with real demons

We need to see the whole picture before anyone should be making Ban this or Ban that decisions. This is a NEW edition,

[Cpt Codpiece]

allies are in the rulebook, you cant just say "we dont wanna do this today" "we wont allow thunderwolves/nipplewing or whatever" "oh those dark eldar cannot use pain tokens today sorry, i dont like the idea of them"

why kick up such a fuss? who cares if an army has a small force of grey knights or an IG squadron or even a little cadre of aspect warriors. it will bring a little variation into the game, and hopefully stop people relying on 'set lists' that they never change. (i am not on about people tailoring for an opponent, rather just mixing up the list)

[magickbk]

I've seen a lot of tournaments with variations on this for many years. Tournaments are frequently scoped with special limitations or additions. Some increase or decrease options, FOC slots, etc. I forsee as many tournaments will say No Allies as will allow them. I also see some tourneys requiring Allies to support special scenarios.

Variety is the spice of life, I say. Playing in an identical tournament at the local shop every month against the same opponents gets boring eventually. Making changes, so long as the rules apply to everyone equally, is good for the tournament scene.

[lobster-overlord]

Some tourneys don't allow Spec Characters still. Some say you can run different FOCs. So why not 'no allies'. If the TO wants to make it that way, he/she can. It's their tournament.

[Chris Copeland]

allies are in the rulebook, you cant just say "we dont wanna do this today" "we wont allow thunderwolves/nipplewing or whatever" "oh those dark eldar cannot use pain tokens today sorry, i dont like the idea of them"

Sure they can. A T.O. can run a tourney any way they wish just as we as players are free to play in whatever tournies we want to. See my analogy about T.O.s running "painted only" tournaments. There is no rule in the book that supports painted-only tournaments but (I've been told) such tournies exist.

As to any criticisms about this speculation I say, "Speculation is fun. We are enjoying the discussion about our favorite hobby. Obviously, we will know more on Saturday. What does it hurt to speculate?"

By the way: I'm on the "allow allies for the first few tournies and let's adjust from there" side of this speculative conversation. Cheers!

[gendoikari87]

I like tournaments that don't ban certain things but still keep balance, for instance, having a best painted prize, and comp scores.

[L192837465]

I personally think that allies will 1) completely change meta, and not just on a local scale but a weekly one. One week someone thinks up a brutal combo, the next week someone counters that perfectly, but the next week someone counters THAT etc etc. It's going to be fascinating and the modeling possibilities are virtually endless. That is AWESOME.

2) it's in the rulebook, it should be used. I don't think validating lists will be any harder than it is now, and will make bad armies viable again by filling in weaknesses, but at what cost?

It's going to be fascinating and I'm totally down for it. My Fallen Angels are going to have a field day with the new starter box!

[flekkzo]

I am making an analogy. Implementing a house rule such as "No Allies" is directly analogous to "Come Painted or Go Home" when it comes to tournies. Not every tourney caters to every kind of player. We are too diverse a crowd for that.

Dear TOs: thank you for all the hard work you do and for running our tournaments. We all really appreciate it! I suggest you run your tournies any way you like... I'll be there! Cheers. Copeland

Oh how I wish they had used Detachment instead of Allies (actually Allied Detachment but it seems like people are locked into the idea of 'Allies' as in 'take what you like from any codex you like'). I once thought it sounded game breaking, but giving it further thought I've realized that it in no way is. No special characters, have to take HQ and Troops, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if people are whining about "purists" in a years time. People who only play units from *one* codex to power game:)

[Denzark]

Banning things from the rule book is weak. Full stop. In 22 years I have found only one rule that was immensely unbalanced that I have banned in house rules - that was 'outflank' stratagem in apoc. Only because allowing a reaver to come in and chainfist a superhaevy to death first turn was a little extreme.

[Black Hydra]

Yeah, people don't seem to understand the limits placed on allies. But we can take special characters. After all Draigo was taken in that WD article.

Since everyone can do allies, it won't be as bad. And even though GK allies might become common at first there's 2 disadvantages to them. Extremely costly points wise. I only see IG really benefiting from them since they can cram so much for so little points. I tried doing a Genestealer Cult list and damn I could only fit 1 GS brood with a broodlord alongside a Tyranid Prime. The other problem is that players might end up playing 2 armies instead of one cohesive army. Just slapping on a deathstar to another army isn't going to make it better. Just focus fire the deathstar and the opponent has that much less on the field.

It's just like every other new codex release and by extension anytime a WAAC brings his/her army. It can be overcome.

[Wildeybeast]

An interesting thought occurs on this topic. What will happen to the 40K doubles tournament that GW runs? In that two players rock up with two armies and play together. Now what happens if both those players rock up with allies - you end up with ttwo players palying with 4 armies and you open up a whole can of interesting issues...

[Black Hydra]

An interesting thought occurs on this topic. What will happen to the 40K doubles tournament that GW runs? In that two players rock up with two armies and play together. Now what happens if both those players rock up with allies - you end up with ttwo players palying with 4 armies and you open up a whole can of interesting issues...

That's interesting, but I think it's a lot to say people will be playing 2 armies now. I know what I said earlier about people playing 2 armies, but that's more of a mindset. Noobs will most likely think they can unleash their deathstars solo on the field while the main force stays in the back holding an objective. Not very smart and most likely to happen.

But as for truly playing 2 armies, I doubt a gimped FOC constitutes a full army. If players aren't thinking of their combined forces as one army then they're missing the point and are at a disadvantage.

So in a doubles tournament, I don't think the problem will be balance, but list building. The winners will know how to fill the holes or play to their army's and detachment's strengths.

[antennafarm]

you've already banned patience and prudence, might as well ban allies!

really, it's your tournament's game, so anything goes.... but why worry about it when you don't know how allies will be implemented in the game?

[gendoikari87]

An interesting thought occurs on this topic. What will happen to the 40K doubles tournament that GW runs? In that two players rock up with two armies and play together. Now what happens if both those players rock up with allies - you end up with ttwo players palying with 4 armies and you open up a whole can of interesting issues...

That's a lot of required troops and HQ's though.

[Wildeybeast]

That's interesting, but I think it's a lot to say people will be playing 2 armies now. I know what I said earlier about people playing 2 armies, but that's more of a mindset. Noobs will most likely think they can unleash their deathstars solo on the field while the main force stays in the back holding an objective. Not very smart and most likely to happen.

But as for truly playing 2 armies, I doubt a gimped FOC constitutes a full army. If players aren't thinking of their combined forces as one army then they're missing the point and are at a disadvantage.

So in a doubles tournament, I don't think the problem will be balance, but list building. The winners will know how to fill the holes or play to their army's and detachment's strengths.

I meant two armies more in the sense of two sets of rules, army books etc. Clearly you still need to fight as cohesive force, but doing so with 4 armies against another 4 armies opens up a whole range of tactical options.


That's a lot of required troops and HQ's though.

True enough, and given the low points limits on armies you wouldn't have room for much else, but rather than relying on your partner to make up for deficencies in your army you can do it yourself where your partner goes down a whole other route.

I'm interested to see what GW do about this, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they banned allies from the doubles tournament as it is effectively already playing with an allied force.

[Black Hydra]

@Wildeybeast: In that case I think the only real problem will be learning all the rules needed. But really how hard is that? You'll have codices and rule observers there so it won't be too bad. Since I'm being shortsighted, what do you think will happen?

[Rapture]

I don't see the 'Troop Tax' as an serious factor at all. Some armies have great troop choices that would be a solid addition to certain other armies. The Troop Tax is not an overall detriment to allies - only a detriment to certain combinations. For example, having to take fire warriors to compliment you space marines is a lot worse than having to take a tactical squad to compliment your tau.

What will happen is that people will buy low cost home objective squatters for as cheap as possible, like kroot or sniper scouts, and then load up on the power units that they want, like thunder hammer terminators or crisis suits.

I am just excited to see the first player who admits to reaching out of the space wolves codex to get cheap thunder hammer terminators for the space marine codex.

Allies will be an uncontrollable mess. TOs can allow everyone to rack their brains for how to squeeze out the best advantage or simply only allow armies based on individual, internally balanced codexes.

[juliusb]

Weak first post. Your premise is to ban something and then you defend the general idea of customizing tournaments. So do you have a problem with allies or are you just reminding yourself that in America, you're free to customize your wargames.

So, yeah tournaments can change whatever they want. I'd like to see someone ban the movement phase and just have stationary gunlines duke it out.

I suspect that's not what you're talking about though; it sounds like you have an issue with allies but you don't want to say it. I love the idea of allies and I can't wait to see what cool/fluffy/funny/competitive stuff people come up with.

[Chris Copeland]

Julius, you are reading WAY too much into the OP. I was relating a pleasant chat that happened at my local game club and opened it up to comments and opinions from the BoLS community. My position is this: let's see how Allies actually work before we do anything. I said so to my compadres and I said so earlier in this thread.

I did defend TOs using House Rules. If a TO suggested the "gunline" tournament you are suggesting I would say, "No thanks. I'll pass. I'll wait for the next one. That sounds silly."

I am both hopeful and dubious about allies at this point. I suspect they might lead to abuses and I am hopeful that they enhance the game and lead to fluffier game play. I am definitely in a hopeful wait-and-see mode. Last point: I never proposed banning Allies. I said it had come up. I suspect it's come up with game clubs all around the world. I'd really like to know what folks are saying outside of my little group. Please go back and revisit my OP. I'm sure all will become clear then. Cheers and good gaming to ya! Cope :)


Weak first post. Your premise is to ban something and then you defend the general idea of customizing tournaments. So do you have a problem with allies or are you just reminding yourself that in America, you're free to customize your wargames.

So, yeah tournaments can change whatever they want. I'd like to see someone ban the movement phase and just have stationary gunlines duke it out.

I suspect that's not what you're talking about though; it sounds like you have an issue with allies but you don't want to say it. I love the idea of allies and I can't wait to see what cool/fluffy/funny/competitive stuff people come up with.

[Chris Copeland]

By the way: I'm on the "allow allies for the first few tournies and let's adjust from there" side of this speculative conversation. Cheers!

Here is where I explicitly state my current position. Cheers.

[Luke Licens]

He's not reading too much into the original post at all:

Your title was 'Should TOs Ban Allies'. This statement heavily implies that Allies are unbalanced. It's a leading question.

You equate the banning with House Rules, which are most often used to patch over inconsistencies in the rules, and rarely to address game balance issues.

Your go-to example of a House Rule is the old stand by '3 Color Rule'. Comparing that to EXCISING a section of the rules is a farce, an obvious and laughable strawman. Why not compare it to banning invisible, intangible models? Nobody wants to play against those.

Now, for a more accurate comparison, lets excise a different section from the rulebook. Let's excise Armor Penetration. Like Allies, it's a rule that affects all codexes, though not necessarily equally. So now everybody always gets an armor save against shooting attacks, except for the few psychic ones which explicitly forbid armor saves.

Would you want to play in a tourney like that?

"That tournement's not for me, I'll sit it out and go to the next one," you calmly reply. Except people decided that that's the way the game SHOULD be played. All the tourneys are like that now, and the only games you can get where boltguns mow down Boyz is a few games a year in your friends basement.

In settings where you're playing strangers, be it a pickup game at your FLGS, or at Adepticon, you and your opponent need to be playing by the same rules. And the easiest way to do that is to play it by the book.

Now, all that said, you did plenty of backpedaling later in the thread, extolling a 'wait and see' approach. But you're also the guy who proposed banning them at a the tourney level nation wide, on a site that is one of the focal points of North American gaming, before the book is even out.



Julius, you are reading WAY too much into the OP. I was relating a pleasant chat that happened at my local game club and opened it up to comments and opinions from the BoLS community. My position is this: let's see how Allies actually work before we do anything. I said so to my compadres and I said so earlier in this thread.

I did defend TOs using House Rules. If a TO suggested the "gunline" tournament you are suggesting I would say, "No thanks. I'll pass. I'll wait for the next one. That sounds silly."

I am both hopeful and dubious about allies at this point. I suspect they might lead to abuses and I am hopeful that they enhance the game and lead to fluffier game play. I am definitely in a hopeful wait-and-see mode. Last point: I never proposed banning Allies. I said it had come up. I suspect it's come up with game clubs all around the world. I'd really like to know what folks are saying outside of my little group. Please go back and revisit my OP. I'm sure all will become clear then. Cheers and good gaming to ya! Cope :)

[terminus]

Allies will be an uncontrollable mess. TOs can allow everyone to rack their brains for how to squeeze out the best advantage or simply only allow armies based on individual, internally balanced codexes.

Reasons why your post is stupid:

1.) It's a kneejerk reaction without any actual game time.
2.) It's an incredibly erroneous assumption that codices are internally balanced. They aren't even close.
3.) It completely disregards the huge boon to modelers and fluff-bunnies.
4.) It is an exaggeration that ally combinations will be that broken. Most of the power lists work on a principle of saturation, and so are unlikely to be strengthened by being diluted with allies.

For example, "oh noes, grey knights with manticores!!11!1!" Except now GK have to take away points from bringing more Grey Knights to bring squishy T3 fodder that can't interact with them rules-wise, and without the slew of chimeras and other tanks that make up an IG list, those manticores will be easy pickings. Likewise, IG bringing GK along are taking a huge chunk of points away from buying more of the tanks and heavy weapons that make them so deadly. And all of the opponent's anti-Marine weapons that are utterly wasted on guardsmen all of a sudden have ideal targets. Rather than contributing to saturation, you are making target priority easy for the opponent.

[Rapture]

Reasons why your post is stupid:

1.) It's a kneejerk reaction without any actual game time.
Kneejerk? Hardly. Some of us have the ability to reach reasonable conclusion through forward thinking. Many humans have no trouble considering something and identifying potential problems.
2.) It's an incredibly erroneous assumption that codices are internally balanced. They aren't even close.
Are you assuming that I am assuming? Well, you are wrong. There is no assumption. The GW writers make attempts to balance each codex (perfectly? never, but they try) - they do not (and will not) attempt to balance each codex with all of the options for allies. The evidence is clear, such as different point values for similar choices in the space marine codex, to anyone with a brain that functions at above a 50% capacity. Balancing one stand alone section of rules (codex) to operate alone is much easier than balancing all codexes capable of operating together (allies). The allies system will create a web of interactions that vastly outnumber those available in the 5th edition rules. Give it 2 seconds of thought (for you, play it safe and go 10 minutes) and you will figure it out.
3.) It completely disregards the huge boon to modelers and fluff-bunnies.
My post was relatively specific. This thread is about TOs banning rules - not fluff or modelling. Why would I mention either in this context? I also didn't mention pie or Africa in my post. Why don't you point out that I am disregarding those as well?
4.) It is an exaggeration that ally combinations will be that broken. Most of the power lists work on a principle of saturation, and so are unlikely to be strengthened by being diluted with allies.
There are not exaggerations. The predictable consequences of the allies rules are so simple that a monkey could see exactly what is going to happen. People will figure out ways to take advantage of any rule and the allies rules are highly susceptible to abuse.

For example, "oh noes, grey knights with manticores!!11!1!" Except now GK have to take away points from bringing more Grey Knights to bring squishy T3 fodder that can't interact with them rules-wise, and without the slew of chimeras and other tanks that make up an IG list, those manticores will be easy pickings. Likewise, IG bringing GK along are taking a huge chunk of points away from buying more of the tanks and heavy weapons that make them so deadly. And all of the opponent's anti-Marine weapons that are utterly wasted on guardsmen all of a sudden have ideal targets. Rather than contributing to saturation, you are making target priority easy for the opponent.
See the red. Take your time and maybe have an adult help you read it...

What a great example. So, is your point that rules will not be abused by morons?. I like how your hypothetical player is completely incapable of finding units that would benefit his army, so he just settles on something that would be more of a detriment than a benefit. Keep in mind that the GK player can simply take melta-vets (a no-brainer choice that can benefit almost any list) as opposed to the useless cannon fodder that you just made up. Regarding IG with GK, there may be fewer guns, but now there is a rock hard assault unit rampaging behind enemy lines. The GW website itself states that the allies rules are perfect for filling in an army's weaknesses.

How about a SM player picking a BA librarian, tactical squad, and a vindicator? The tax on that fast vindicator (I know that the rules for vehicles are changing, this example exists to demonstrate a general point) consists entirely of useful choices and allows access to better or equivalent versions of units the SM player already has. You will see swaps like this all of the time.

Think first, type second.

[alshrive]

i do not feel they should be banned. if it has been written in to the rulebook then i believe it is fair game. it would be no different to them selecting another part of the rulebook and banning that.
"hey a lot of models are dying to shooting, lets ban the shooting phase!"

i know it is a bit of an exaggeration, but i just feel if it is in the main rules then it shouldnt be discounted.

[Chris Copeland]

Dear Luke, I think I'm pretty clear about my easy-going, non-confrontational opinions here. You are making assumptions about me that are wrong even in the face of my explicitly explaining myself. I will try to address some of your points, however:


The title of the thread is not, "Should TOs Ban Allies." Rather, the title is "Should TOs Ban Allies? Hmmmm..." (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=22675) the "Hmmmmm" at the end was meant to indicate someone thinking something through. So no, the statement isn't implying the rules will be unbalanced. It's implying that they might be unbalanced and it would be fun to engage in a speculative discussion about it.
There are all kinds of House Rules that folks play. During Vth Edition many people in my area disregarded true line of sight (a core game mechanic) and regularly played games using IVth Edition's line of sight rules. You are right about one thing: I am for anyone using any House Rules they want to. I have absolutely no problem with that.
In pickup games I always discuss the wheres and whats of what is about to go down. If no one mentions a House Rule ahead of time we don't use any. I can't tell you how many times "Hey. let's play without True Line of Sight. Let's use IVths line of sight rules." was mentioned (either by me or the other guy) before a game.
I did not say Allies should be banned nationwide. I said, "Hey, this is being discussed in my local group, what do y'all think?"
Lastly, I stated my support for Allies in my third post in this thread. My first post boils down to "TOs can ban allies if they want. Let's discuss this." My second post was a quip admitting this was all speculative. My third post concludes with me saying that I support Allies. I think this is hardly backpeddling. It's a conversation, not an argument.

Luke, I hope this clears up any confusions about what I mean or where I am coming from. Cheers and good gaming to you! Cope



He's not reading too much into the original post at all:

Your title was 'Should TOs Ban Allies'. This statement heavily implies that Allies are unbalanced. It's a leading question.

You equate the banning with House Rules, which are most often used to patch over inconsistencies in the rules, and rarely to address game balance issues.

Your go-to example of a House Rule is the old stand by '3 Color Rule'. Comparing that to EXCISING a section of the rules is a farce, an obvious and laughable strawman. Why not compare it to banning invisible, intangible models? Nobody wants to play against those.

Now, for a more accurate comparison, lets excise a different section from the rulebook. Let's excise Armor Penetration. Like Allies, it's a rule that affects all codexes, though not necessarily equally. So now everybody always gets an armor save against shooting attacks, except for the few psychic ones which explicitly forbid armor saves.

Would you want to play in a tourney like that?

"That tournement's not for me, I'll sit it out and go to the next one," you calmly reply. Except people decided that that's the way the game SHOULD be played. All the tourneys are like that now, and the only games you can get where boltguns mow down Boyz is a few games a year in your friends basement.

In settings where you're playing strangers, be it a pickup game at your FLGS, or at Adepticon, you and your opponent need to be playing by the same rules. And the easiest way to do that is to play it by the book.

Now, all that said, you did plenty of backpedaling later in the thread, extolling a 'wait and see' approach. But you're also the guy who proposed banning them at a the tourney level nation wide, on a site that is one of the focal points of North American gaming, before the book is even out.

[Wolfshade]

Let us keep it civil :D

It would be interesting to see how this works.
Part of me thinks that this could be a good thing as it address the issues (read cost) of starting a 2nd army so you can build it up as a detachment to your first.
It would also enable so nice fluff
IG + GKs/SM/SoB most imperial guard being reinforced by the elite or pdf being supported by elites
IG + CSM renegades with elites
CSM + Deamons Fluff eye of terror list
DE + E combined raiding party
etc.
There are some dubious allies which I do not understand and it does raise questions regarding the internal balance. This should enable the play of more narrative games.
On the flip side, it is so GW can sell more varied kits, it could lead to some "abusive" lists
But I'm not a tournament player so I am not sure how this is going to affect my gaming group

[StraightSilver]

This may come as a great surprise, and maybe I am in the minority, but not everyone who attends a 40K tournament, certainly in the UK,does so with the sole purpose of building uber-competetive list and winning.

I go to tournaments to have fun, winning isn't everything and my playing ability means more often than not I end up on the middle - bottom tables.

That doesn't stop me from attending.

My main goal is to play against beautifully painted armies (for the most part) and meet new players, but also to learn a lot about tactics and army building.

I have won the best painted a couple of times, and that's enough for me.

So having allies in will ,from my point of view, make Tournaments more fun, and more engaging for players like myself, as I will get to see some much needed variety on the battle field.

And to be honest, we had allies in earlier editions, so we're having something given back that was taken away from us.

Nobody complained that much when Battle Sisters could have IG and SM Allies.

I know most people go to Tournaments purely to win games, but not everybody goes for the same reasons.

So I for one would rather Tournament Organisers embraced the change, as I think the game will be better for it.

[eldargal]

I think not only should tournament organisers ban Allies, they should ban players as well, I guarantee this will fix 100% of the problems associated with tournaments.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I think not only should tournament organisers ban Allies, they should ban players as well, I guarantee this will fix 100% of the problems associated with tournaments.

This isn't a Yugioh tournament m'dear. :p

[Wolfshade]

I think not only should tournament organisers ban Allies, they should ban players as well, I guarantee this will fix 100% of the problems associated with tournaments.
Radical, but effective.
Unless the people who complain about tornaments are not people who play in them, therefore the complaints will continue.
It was not so long ago that we heard the lament that GW didn't support any tournament, well aside from the ones it runs a Warhammer World and elsewhere that is...

[Chris Copeland]

My main goal is to play against beautifully painted armies (for the most part) and meet new players, but also to learn a lot about tactics and army building.

I have won the best painted a couple of times, and that's enough for me.

You just described, well, ME! That is also what I want from tournies! I'd like to place from time to time but I always know I have at least a shot at best painted army (in my local scene at least). I've been to painted-only one-off events and painted-only Apocalypse games. I have as yet to see a painted-only tournament but I hear they exist.

As far as Allies go, I am looking forward to the painting and modeling possibilities it will open up. For all of Vth Edition I played Tyranids. I've decided to kick off VIth with a Blood Angels army. I need to look this up: do the Blood Angels have any kind of corresponding IG forces, the way the Ultramarines do? I have this vision of troops wearing black uniforms with red highlights going into battle alongside the Blood Angels.

I do suspect that Allies will lead to some abuses... but the WAAC players I know find exploits in every rule-set and codex anyway. Part of the solution, if it gets out of hand, might be for TOs to disallow Allies. I maintain that TOs would be within their rights to do so just as we would be within our rights to bypass any such tournaments if we didn't like the house rules. I also think that we needn't rush to any conclusions... heck, the rules aren't even out yet!

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

That's what Throne of Skulls is, you have to have a nicely painted army to get anywhere.

[Chris Copeland]

Ha! Well said, EldarGal! Along those lines, invitation-only tournies could be fun. I've been to invitation-only Apocalypse games that featured only fully painted, fluffy armies. The players were all veterans and an easy going lot... not a WAAC player to be seen.

I could also see how such Invitationals would raise the ire of those not invited...


I think not only should tournament organisers ban Allies, they should ban players as well, I guarantee this will fix 100% of the problems associated with tournaments.

[Skeith154]

i'm no 40k player, but asides from the fact the rulebook isn't out yet, i fail to see how allies would over power or unbalance an army other then granting one army access to a few units from another army, it limits those does it not? it can't be that different from the storm of magic rules allowing you to take daemons or undead with your normal army. it's just a tiny force of another army to shore up whatever weakness you may have in your line up. if you opponents have the same access there shouldn't be a problem. a skilled player can get the most out of his force and with allies should be able to indentify which ally will cover his armies weakness. even if your working off an old codex

[Wildeybeast]

i'm no 40k player, but asides from the fact the rulebook isn't out yet, i fail to see how allies would over power or unbalance an army other then granting one army access to a few units from another army, it limits those does it not? it can't be that different from the storm of magic rules allowing you to take daemons or undead with your normal army. it's just a tiny force of another army to shore up whatever weakness you may have in your line up. if you opponents have the same access there shouldn't be a problem. a skilled player can get the most out of his force and with allies should be able to indentify which ally will cover his armies weakness. even if your working off an old codex

Except it isn't like SoM at all. In that, everyone has access to the same stuff. The 40k allies list is stupidly arbitrary, with some races getting no allies at all while others get loads. Regardless of how it shakes out in the tournament scene, it isn't fair to begin with. Aside from that, it opens up the way for some really beardy army combos. I applaud those people here who view tournies as a chance for some, but there are some really competitive neckbreads out there and this has the potential for gross exploitation. I'm not saying that will happen, nor that they should be banned, but the potential is there. There was a good reason they took Dogs of War out of fantasy, namely that it allowed you to overcome design weaknesses in your army and messed up the game as a result. This has the possibility to do the same. However, I'm holding off judgement until I see the full rules and hopefully they come with an 'opponent's permission' tag.


@Wildeybeast: In that case I think the only real problem will be learning all the rules needed. But really how hard is that? You'll have codices and rule observers there so it won't be too bad. Since I'm being shortsighted, what do you think will happen?

It isn't much of an issue, what is more problematic is the potential for exploitation as mentioned above.

[Black Hydra]

It isn't much of an issue, what is more problematic is the potential for exploitation as mentioned above.

I thought the exploitation issue was kind of obvious. I guess I meant if there were any other problems involving eight armies max on the field with only 4 players.

[Skeith154]

ahh i think i see what your getting at. i didn't start playing till dogs of war had past me by so i didn't experience game play with them. though it doesn't make sense to have random allies for others and not any for some. unless they got something in the works to balance out ally-less races? i don't know.

[darkfluid]

All the 6th ed talk has me interested in the possibility of returning to the game. I haven't played since 2nd ED (with a slight dabbling in 3rd at its release), so I may be a bit naive here But to me, the idea that allies are such a big deal...seams a bit silly. They were always part of the 40k I knew and no one thought they overpowered anything. They still cost points. If you fight a large Ork mob with a allies army of IG and Blood Angels...how does that change things. You still have your weapons, they have their's and you have your tactics.

Has the game changed that significantly? To me it sounded like some of the 5th codex's got crazy. Obviously point values on some armies must of been way too low and or the troops/FOC not really play tested for things to be that out of hand. As much as people talked about the cheese days of 2nd ED, I only remember the Tyranids as super potent, and even they had weaknesses. I think I remember some of their mission cards were simply have a unit survive a random dice roll of rounds and you would win!

If they did their job balancing points and play tested armies, then allies shouldn't matter. Does anyone even know how allies will fit within the FOC yet? I mean, in 2nd ED you were limited by what models you could take from allies, it's not like you could just pick anything from the ally's army list! They thought it through, limited what you could take for balance and also tried to limit it based on the fluff.

Feel free to flame if necessary.

[Chris Copeland]

Welcome back to the game! I expect great things from VIth edition. No flaming here. This is a conversation, not an argument. :)

What are you considering playing in VIth? What Allies are you considering?

Cheers. Cope


If they did their job balancing points and play tested armies, then allies shouldn't matter. Does anyone even know how allies will fit within the FOC yet? I mean, in 2nd ED you were limited by what models you could take from allies, it's not like you could just pick anything from the ally's army list! They thought it through, limited what you could take for balance and also tried to limit it based on the fluff.

Feel free to flame if necessary.

[darkfluid]

Welcome back to the game! I expect great things from VIth edition. No flaming here. This is a conversation, not an argument. :)

What are you considering playing in VIth? What Allies are you considering?

Cheers. Cope

I don't really want to thread jack, so I'll be brief. My classic army's were IG and Chaos (thousand suns), painting style wise I am attracted to Tyranids, Orcs and Chaos. I'm thinking Orks this time around if they bring back a lot of the random fun elements. I'll base my second army on allies I think. At my age I'm don't worry about winning, but having fun, orcs always seemed to be the most fun.

[daboarder]

I think not only should tournament organisers ban Allies, they should ban players as well, I guarantee this will fix 100% of the problems associated with tournaments.

I must say I'm surprised to here you say that eldargirl normally you are the voice of reason that does not jump to conclusions on these boards.

There are a lot of things we don't know about the interaction of allied armies yet and its far to early to jump to conclusions.

That being said I for one cannot wait to run corrupt meat shield guardsmen for my dark mechanicum/ deamonforge army.

Or Epidemius and some proper nurgle deamons in my nurgle army.

And I'm REALLY looking forward to running my sisters of battle with my BA again.

[Chris Copeland]

I must say I'm surprised to here you say that eldargirl normally you are the voice of reason that does not jump to conclusions on these boards.

I think she's just making a funny quip. That is how I took it.

[gendoikari87]

I must say I'm surprised to here you say that eldargirl normally you are the voice of reason that does not jump to conclusions on these boards.

There are a lot of things we don't know about the interaction of allied armies yet and its far to early to jump to conclusions.

That being said I for one cannot wait to run corrupt meat shield guardsmen for my dark mechanicum/ deamonforge army.

Or Epidemius and some proper nurgle deamons in my nurgle army.

And I'm REALLY looking forward to running my sisters of battle with my BA again.

fairly sure she was being sarcastic.

[daboarder]

oh yeah that would be more in character.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I think she's just making a funny quip. That is how I took it.

Also, why can people never spell usernames right?

[Wolfshade]

We should use language tags so people know the way in which we say stuff, either that or we can all use Lojban to avoid such confusion

[eldargal]

Yup, just being sarcastic and silly.:)


I think she's just making a funny quip. That is how I took it.

[daboarder]

....I just realized that I've been spelling your user tag wrong for years.....oops!

[Wildeybeast]

ahh i think i see what your getting at. i didn't start playing till dogs of war had past me by so i didn't experience game play with them. though it doesn't make sense to have random allies for others and not any for some. unless they got something in the works to balance out ally-less races? i don't know.

They let you do all sorts of stupid stuff, like giving people cannons or hevay cavalary when they didn't have them in their army book. I hope they do balance the allies system some to make it fair, which is why I'm waiting until I've read it until I decry it as the last straw of game breaking, rampant capitalism nonsense from GW and I rage quit.


I thought the exploitation issue was kind of obvious. I guess I meant if there were any other problems involving eight armies max on the field with only 4 players.

Not that I can think of.