Allies and Scenery - Game breaking or Enhancing?

[Levitas]

6th wants us to buy more. No real shock there. Buy a funky forest and bastion to go with the numerous flyers you have over two allied armies. But when the smoke has cleared and tills have stopped ringing, will these two new elements actually enhance or degrade the game?

Will we see strategic use of scenery and allies in tournaments or will they quickly fade away like a bad joke? Admit it, you've already taken a second look at the bastion and convinced yourself its worth it. And Allies give you the push you need to buy those Tau vespids to rock out with your Grey Knights, ok maybe not...

Thoughts on the long term effects of trees and friends?

Forget war..."There is only Sales!"

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Allies are a wonderful benefit to DIY counts-as armies, it'll let me explore some new unit ideas for my Hrud!

Unsure on terrain, but I'd imagine its staticness in a game that heavily emphasizes movement will mean it isn't too bad?

[Black Hydra]

I think Allies is great. While not exactly tournament friendly, now we can take even more fluffy armies and fill in for weaknesses our many armies can't do otherwise. That being said, we better prepare to see super cheesy lists dominate for the first few months. GK are the obvious choice, but Space Marines and Tau together? SKUB! That one's going to hurt.

I couldn't care less about fortifications. Out of all the changes that one is just for buying. Purely buying. It doesn't really add much and it would cost points to buy the damn fortifications. Just use it as terrain and have it be neutral so anyone who wants it can have it. That's the way it's worked before right? The only thing about fortifications I like is that armies get to take buffers such as the Imperial Statue. I just hope they come up with some for Xenos, but that's unlikely. So we'll have to stick to making our own. Necron Pylons forcing psykers to reroll their successful leadership tests? Yeah!

Overall, allies I consider good. Fortifications, kind of pointless except for buffers.

[harveydent]

if you give armies the ability to mix and match, you tend to get armies that are even more heavily min-max'd.

given the pre-6th edition environment, if you gave armies access to units from other books, you would have GK bringing in various 'toolbox' units from SM, IG or SW. the same would be true of the other top tier forces, and they would tweak the effectiveness of their lists by importing. this just creates even more problems because usually the imported units will account for any inherent weakness in a list.

as for post 6th and the rules being different, i'm not sure.

[Black Hydra]

if you give armies the ability to mix and match, you tend to get armies that are even more heavily min-max'd.

given the pre-6th edition environment, if you gave armies access to units from other books, you would have GK bringing in various 'toolbox' units from SM, IG or SW. the same would be true of the other top tier forces, and they would tweak the effectiveness of their lists by importing. this just creates even more problems because usually the imported units will account for any inherent weakness in a list.

But everyone can bring allies (even Tyranids with IG, Genestealer cult, I don't care what anyone says). And we still have to follow certain guidelines like uncertain allies and allies of convenience. There will be some way to mitigate it.

Yeah it could get pretty wacky pretty fast. But if tournament organizers are smart they'll ban allies or force teams to have more varied lists. There's always a way. I still stand by the allies rule. It'll be cool.

[gendoikari87]

allies are a nice touch, they bring variety and choice and that's never a bad thing. As long as the individual army books are balanced i don't see a problem.

Bunkers on the other hand i'm really looking forward too.

[eldargal]

I want to wait and see the full extent of both the ally and scenery rules before making any kind of decision. However as mentioned above if everyone can take allies then it isn't exactly providing an unfair advantage. Sure those Grey Knights could take some Long Fangs but so could my Eldar if I wanted too.

As for scenery, you don't have to buy GW kits, you can make your own or use other companies. Just like with everything else. I think these rules look extremely promising actually, they add a whole new layer of tactical complexity to the game. Might also give an incentive for GW to produce some bloody Eldar terrain for once.

[Corvus-Master-of-The-4th]

Eldargal... I really hope your right I'd love to seen Eldar Buildings . I do however feel House Rules are becoming dominant, especially from the way I picked up info in the White Dwarf . For example the Imperial Statuary could be changed to the Eldar Statuary, etc :P

[Mr Mystery]

First up, when it comes to 'game breaking' blame the individual player. It's clear that the 'page 5' of 40k is about telling a story. Give your battle a backstory. Build up grudges.

The result of the game should be secondary to the playing.

For instance, I am tempted to add some Guardsmen to my Nercons, to represent mind shackled slaves. But first, I need to beat an IG Player, how else am I meant to get those Scarabs into their cortex? After a string of victories, I can start looking at including more exotic IG units, and bigger Bastions and defences.

They add an extra dimension to the game for players to explore. And if someone chooses to exploit rather than explore, then that's their call. I'll play them, but likely only once.

[fuzzbuket]

back at the start of 5th i used a BA (paper dex) and gk (3rd ed) allied army, it worked suprisingly well with the GK holding objectives and BA going omnomnom

and as buildings?

i always assumed marines had bunkers and such that could drop in from orbit (dow had these i think?) and a lot of armies it makes sence