New 6th Allies Matrix for Dark Eldar

It's also a godsend to those like Kinnay and myself who just see the countless opportunities for conversions and theme.

Exactly, thank you Sky.
What fo you think about my conversion ideas, btw?

But it is indeed true, however, that there will be super lame power builds popping up a week or so after launch. How will we counter this? Will allies be a substantial part of net lists?

Talking about meta-game shifts before all rules are announced and codex's have been patched is a little silly.

Allies is going to be great for those who like to convert armies and have count as units. I personally have a few different ideas that I would like to try out. I don't get to play 40k much so I am pretty much starting fresh with rules this edition (tho my Dark Eldar army is already finished) . So far I am thinking of using allies with CSM, Chaos Deamons and Eldar. My archon's fluff states that he is a psyker and in exile so now I can have rules to support it.

Grumpy Kwi wrote:

My fear is if I do not want to run an ally will I be un-competitive when playing someone who does?

Here is to hoping that there is a permission based option to say, "NO WAY JOSE!" to my opponent (they already know my ability to say no to IA options).

I'm inclined to agree with this. The majority of players that will use allies will probably use units to fill holes and weaknesses in their codex with units that disrupt those weaknesses that were designed to balance the army. I truly hope that there is a "NO WAY JOSE" clause
Griping aside, Kinnay's ideas are awesome! If used right, allies could truly add to the flavor of the game. Awesome conversions and fun back stories could really make for some great looking armies and fun games. It seems that 6th edition is a move towards injecting some creativity and flavor into a game that was becoming a formulaic yawnfest. Against an opponent that plays in the spirit of the game, the use of allies will add towards making the game more fun. Against an opponent that thinks like a 5 year-old kid, allies could really make for annoying games. I can see tournaments putting the kibosh on allies for the reasons of balance.

Kinnay-Converting a Dark Avatar...AWESOME

Evil Space Elves wrote:

Kinnay-Converting a Dark Avatar...AWESOME

Thats yet another one of the thoughts that I had since hearing about allies.

Evil Space Elves wrote:

Against an opponent that thinks like a 5 year-old kid, allies could really make for annoying games.

I wouldn't call playing to win childish, I'd call it the heart of competition. Meta-games don't develop into complex systems without intelligent thought. When faced with an "imbalance" in a game, there are generally two approaches. The first is to just say "It's broken, we all agree not to use it, problem solved." This is a really simple and boring solution to a much more interesting problem. The second option is to push the game to its limits to see how this imbalance actually handles under pressure. Over time, strategies come, go, and can even return as the player's meta-game changes. The result is a rich and deep game that is enjoyable due to its complexities. If you look at any competitive game, from chess to Street Fighter to Starcraft, this is all true.

I will say however, that I find the addition of allies to be highly frustrating. The ability to balance one army, in line with another, two, three, or the fifteen or so that are in 40k is extremely difficult. To then blur the army entirely, by polluting it with another army's strengths just pours fuel on the fire. That being said, 2v2 tournaments are common enough, no? If Games Workshop is confident that there is no truly unbeatable combinations, due to the massive variation in possibilities, then we trust them and play.

If in a year, it comes back around that there are serious balance issues that cannot be erreta'd out, we only have to wait another 12 months before GW releases another edition.

I just want to get the point across that it isn't a child who thinks of the most abusive strategies. A child may want cheese, may want to win at all costs, but only true genius has the ability to change the meta-game in a profound way.

Do only children think of abusive strategies?

There's a player demographic concept used by Magic: the Gathering designers that breaks down players into groups: those that play to have an unusual play experience, those that play to have a challenge, and those that play to gain victory. There are also those players that play to immerse themselves in the backstory of the game (pretty hard to do in Chess: not so hard to do in 40K)

Most people fall into two or more categories, and bashing or exalting a descriptor doesn't really get you anywhere. There can be mis-matches: when a pure "Timmy" with his 3 Land Raiders and 18 Terminators faces a pure "Spike" with his min-maxed mech spam of any faction. There are also intersections: an army of 14 Paladins and two giant fliers would warm the heart of the player who likes big shiny toys just as much as that of he who looks at wound allocation rules with a wild glint in his eye.

Ponder these things, and think about which categories you and those around you fall into. *Know* that changing your strategy to better fit with the temperments of your local environment is a much slower and costlier thing than changing a build order in Starcraft, for example. One man's challenge is another's frustration: this is life, and thus this is 40K.

[/old man]

LOL!

Preach it brotha!

The example with Starcraft and Street Fighter doesn't quite fly in my eyes. Those are quite balanced games, Street Fighter less so, but Starcraft & Starcraft 2 are almost at all times near perfect balance. Changing a build order is simple and easy, adjusting to a metagame likewise. It requires no investment but time.

Not the case with 40k. First of all, it is nowhere near balanced, and never will because of the way how GW updates codices. Secondly, it's a miniatures game. Unless you heavily proxy, you cannot really try out virtually any combination. Thirdly, it's a lot more time consuming game than the mentioned examples. Street Fighter fights last mere minutes, Starcraft matches can vary but rarely extend past one hour mark, because Starcraft is a mentally exhausting game.

I agree about the various types of player mixing. I like efficient units. I like winning games. I like improving. However, I always try to work out a flavour for my lists as well. I don't play this game just to win, I've got Starcraft for that. Heck, I can just play any of Dawn of War games. I play this game for the fun, narrative wargame experience in a setting I immensely like that I cannot get from any other game. If someone wants to play beardy lists, good on them. I'll simply not play with them, as I won't get much pleasure out of a game with such opponent.

It's a sign of a good opponent when you're having a good time even when losing. I've had most fun with games where I have to desperately fight tooth and nail to drag out a draw. One-sided stomps usually aren't all that satisfying. We'll see how the allies impact the metagame, but for now I can think of the positives of receiving many fun, fluffy games.

[quote="Cavash]...if psykers become almost essential for victory then you will never see any true Dark Eldar forces, which would be dissapointing.[/quote]

I think that's going to be an emphatic YES once you know who wrote the new Psychic Power cards....

*shakes fists at the sky* MMMMMAAAAAATTT WWWWAAAAAAAAARRRRDDD!!

Raucir

[quote="Raucir Lustingclaw"]

Cavash wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

...if psykers become almost essential for victory then you will never see any true Dark Eldar forces, which would be dissapointing.

I think that's going to be an emphatic YES once you know who wrote the new Psychis power cards....

*shakes fists at the sky* MMMMMAAAAAATTT WWWWAAAAAAAAARRRRDDD!!

Raucir

Really?

I'm not fond of the new allies rule. Sorry. Have been roling it around in my head for a few days now and it just doesn't sit right with me somehow. And not even for converting purposes like sky and kinnay. You see, no offence, if I really want to I don't need excuses to convert and paint up miniatures of other armies exactly like I want to. Do you really need this ally rule for that? You can paint a dark avatar or a farseer as shadowseer right now. What's stopping you?

I'm afraid if i want to enter tournaments I'll have to buy a 2nd army (like Eldar) to team up with for their psychic abilities. I don't like to be forced this way.

But again, still dont have a copy of the book in my hand, so I'm still just guessing...

Of course nothing is keeping me from converting and painting up a Dark Avatar, or any other model, really. But you must agree that there is a considerable difference between having a nice model on your shelf and being able to field it along with your other 'legal' models. Wouldn't you want to actually use your awesome new coven unit you put so much effort into? Or the wicked flier you designed?

We all like to play the game and this is what the game is about (to me, at the very least): playing with beautiful and individually modified models.

I would use that 'dark' avatar in my eldar army, or that farseer/shadowseer in my DE army as a harlequin. Why not?

Are there rules how to paint up Craftworld Eldar? Most ppl end up with bright colored paint schemes, but it's not a rule in the rulebook.

Okay, I was assuming we were talking about converted models we don't actually have the corresponding army for.

Oh i see the confusion.

Well, the new Allies rule would make it easier to buy a complete new Eldar army as an ally (because you need less). But still... You don't nééd the ally rule IMHO for the reasons I've read so far in this thread.

I just thought the strength and weaknesses (and how you cope with your weaknesses) made it strategically an interesting game. But oh well... We'll see how this works out.

Allies will cause major headaches in the competitive scene as you can guarantee that any 'broken' combos will be abused to within an inch of their lives. In particular I can see Eldar being a popular choice for access to Farseers and Runes of Warding.

I strongly suspect that many tournaments will be "NO ALLIES!"

Surely the only difference would be how many players actually take psykers? They've been around for ages, it's only the powers that are changing, and giving everyone a 6+ chance to nullify. I'm not overly worried about psychic powers taking over the game.

With regard to allies, I've already started on my CWE, and if I choose to get the starter set, then Night Lords are looking like a distinct possibility, I love the idea in the black library books that whilst technically they're chaos marines, they're not friends of the chaos gods by any stretch. Plus, I love the Night Lords colour scheme.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Surely the only difference would be how many players actually take psykers? They've been around for ages, it's only the powers that are changing, and giving everyone a 6+ chance to nullify. I'm not overly worried about psychic powers taking over the game.

That will depend on the relative strength of the new powers. If they are particularly strong then psychic defence will be vital and we have none of that so making the opponent roll 3d6 with perils on 12+ will help even the score.

Quote :

With regard to allies, I've already started on my CWE, and if I choose to get the starter set, then Night Lords are looking like a distinct possibility, I love the idea in the black library books that whilst technically they're chaos marines, they're not friends of the chaos gods by any stretch. Plus, I love the Night Lords colour scheme.

I have a small CSM force already and I must admit I was tempted to repaint them as Night Lords after reading ADB's novels. I also have small forces of various other armies that I could ally with if needed but I am genuinely worried that certain ally choices will make for almost unbeatable armies. Once again GW pushes the sale of models at the expense of the gameplay.

True, from what I've read today, it seems that Eldar are likely to be the ally we're able to make best use of. Whilst I've not seen anything myself (waiting until I've actually read the rules before I decide if the new edition is broken) I'd be very surprised if the new psychic stuff imbalances the whole game. From what I can glean Haywire Blasters and massed darklight will spell the relatively speedy doom of most vehicles, so not surprising if we take a hit in other places.

Can't see myself taking a Chaos Sorceror as an ally anyway, but having the opportunity to take my defiler might give me more reason to finish painting it!

From the few power cards seen in WD, the new powers don't seem too potent. For example, the #6 Pyromancy power, Molten Beam, is literally "fire a meltagun."

Allandrel wrote:

From the few power cards seen in WD, the new powers don't seem too potent. For example, the #6 Pyromancy power, Molten Beam, is literally "fire a meltagun."

This was my take also. I suspect that people that use psykers to begin with will probably stick with the codex ones. Unless the Divination deck is outright amazing, my CWE will stick with the stock stuff.

It has been said that both Divination and Telepathy are, in fact, outright amazing. Think Mindshackle Scarabs. And rerolling Reserves, Terrain and stuff. Rerolling hits and wounds in combat, snap firing with normal BS. Better cover saves, causing morale checks, and so on. Pretty mechanics influencing stuff.

yay, forced to take Eldrad again to bolster a poorly handled Xenos book from Sales Workshop.

GW. HAS. RUINED. DE.

If half of you are still playing DE in six months Ill be genuinely surprised.

And yes chances are running a 'pure' force will see you at a distinct disadvantage.

BUY.MOAR !!!!