Tabletop Warhammer?

Well I wouldn't implement any rule unless the majority agreed with it. I could act like a dictator but then none of you would want to play and it wouldn't be much of a league :p This has to be fun for everyone or it won't work. I will try and encourage change though, don't really want anyone perfecting a super list then sticking wih it forever.
 
Each Army has a list of who they can and cannot ally with in 6th edition and there are rules tied to it as well, Some allies cannot be within a certain distance of each other etc etc and certain Armies just flatout cannot ally with each other.

Battle Brothers - Your two forces benefit from each others universal special rules, psychic powers, and everything. They are essentially the same force.

Allies of Convenience - These two forces are joining to fight a common foe, but are not the best of friends. They do not benefit from each others Universal Special Rules or any psychic powers. You will treat each force as being separate.

Desperate Allies - Only the most dire of circumstances will bring these two forces together on the same side. If any Desperate Allies start their turn within 6" of your normal units.you must roll a d6. If a 1 is rolled then the unit does nothing for the turn as they refuse to act. They are either betraying your or watching you for betrayal.


Although just read that Necrons are Desperate Allies with Blood Angels... The frack is that about?

Not Before the Apocalypse - these armies can never be allies.
 
Last edited:
Nids are one of them, if they are in range of your ally that they are not sure about you have to take a test and if you fail you cant shoot/move/charge because your too busy watching what they are doing incase the stab you in the back. Somthing like that haha
 
Yeah I know, but it's really stupid.

Necrons can ally with Chaos, Grey Knights, Orks and Tau....why?!? It makes no sense, it's just like they've randomly picked ones. Necrons hate all life, yet they'd ally with Orks. Can you imagine that strategic meeting?

It only makes sense for CSM + Daemons or Space Marines + Imperial Guard. Everything else is just far fetched or borderline stupid.

It leads to a lot of really cheap lists (IG allied with Grey Knights for unbeatable close combat troops and long ranged tanks or Eldar and Dark Eldar for seer council on jetbikes combined with Dark Eldar)
 
I would like to play 6th edition because I am currently learning to play this with Drumunsta with our models. But wasnt there a problem with vasal not being the next edition
 
It wouldn't be a massive problem with Vassal, the only thing that's changed in terms of the built in functions is the vehicle damage tables so they'd have to be rolled and the rulebook consulted to find out the result.
 
I can see Allies being a pretty bad idea.

A Nurgle based CSM Army with Demon Allies and a squad of Plaguebringers and Epidemius for Tally would just be wrong. Read reports of Plague Bearers running around with 3+ Invuln and wounding on a 2+ with poison so ignores Armor saves. Pretty harsh.
 
Last edited:
the only problem that i will probs have is tht i know nothing about the 5th ed. i know the 6th and would love to find out about the flyers (but i dont have them for the nids :( orcs i do tho) i am going to try and get a copy of there new book about the flyers and i can see if ill pop it in dropbox for u guys lol. i like the idea of the 2000 point army but its the time that i think people will strugle. the 1750 will be good cos its not much more points but still gives you the idea to really think about the army. maybees if we continue to 3/4 then slowly increase or have little mini leauges with smaller based armies or even have double up games. there is loads of options we can do.
 
I've no problems doing larger battles, though maybe keep the second league sub 2000 points whilst we keep learning the rules and what works etc.

I don't know if it's possible to do one but if we all get really into 40k again we could try a narrative campaign using vassal.

I don't think enforcing army changes from one league to another is a good idea, but it can be encouraged :-)
 
I don’t have a problem with the points and it can always be saved. I know that it is taking some time to learn the armies but that comes with practice. Against them and playing them. I would say every 2 leagues make a change then you have chance to learn them and then move on. also it depends on the size of the next league because it looks like a few others are interested.
 
A narrative campaign could prove to be interesting. It would give us all a chance to contribute some fluff as well as crushing one another's armies. :p
 
I would say if we are switching to 6th (minus fliers) then keep season 2 1500pts whilst we get used to rules then go 2k on season 3?

If we go 6th no way I'm taking Nids, 6th hates combat!

JHeaton said:
A narrative campaign could prove to be interesting. It would give us all a chance to contribute some fluff as well as crushing one another's armies. :p
Click to expand...

And I do like this idea too, love it in fact!
 
It's not really great when you're the guy that pulls the underpowered 4th-ed Codex that finishes bottom in every tournament in the world. Or Sisters of Battle. :p
 
No1newts said:
I would say if we are switching to 6th (minus fliers) then keep season 2 1500pts whilst we get used to rules then go 2k on season 3?
Click to expand...

Yep that sounds good!

clartymarty said:
WHEN CHOOSING ARMIES WHY DONT WE PUT NAMES IN A HAT KIND OF THING? THEN ITS RANDOM AND WE GOTTA THINK ON OUR TOES?
Click to expand...

NO I mean, no. I just think that's even more limiting, don't want people to be bored having to play a whole tournament with an army they hate.

When people say narrative do you mean for individual battles or a unifying one for the whole league?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom