Remembering that I’m still new to 40k, and that some parts of this post may be incorrect, I’ve been thinking a lot about the inclusion of allies in 40k armies.
I’ve listened to a few podcasts and 1 in particular: The 11th Company, have talked at length about including an allied detachment in your primary army. The focus of much of the debate regarding allies lies in –WHAT- allies to take, how many points to spend on allies, and other issues of efficiency and list building.

From what I can understand, the main reasons to include allies in your 40k army is to either safeguard your armies weakness (ie, wolf priests for psychic defence); or to further enhance your armies strength (ie, Deathwing Terminators). When looking at allies in these terms, very few (if any) lists are taking allies for troops. In fact, it appears that the allied troop choice is just a minimum unit that allows you to unlock the more specialised Elite/ Heavy/ Fast options. In this respect, the troop choice you must take could be considered a “tax” for taking other units.
So I then considered how to manipulate this “tax”, going on the principle that a competitive list will maximise the important elements, and minimise the chaff.

So (finally getting to the point), is this the area where “force multiplier” characters really shine? Example, some people suggest that Draigo is very over-costed a 2XX points; however, if you really want to add Paladins to your space marines, does this become the most efficient way to do it? Likewise, if you really want to add SM terminators to your Guard, is Belial more cost effective than a DA captain and a 5man tac squad?
I think this is especially prevalent with non-special characters that allow FoC manipulation, like a Biker-Boss or SM bike Captain. A biker boss allows you to add a Nob biker squad to an allied army, without the “tax2 of paying for additional troops, and the boss adds to the unit to enhance its effectiveness.

Am I barking up the wrong tree?? Is Draigo always overpriced, and nothing can offset that? Or will we begin to see more of these “force multiplier” characters as the Meta-game changes, and more specific unit counters are required?

Many thanks, Hetelic

Draigo is a force multiplier in a GK force, thanks to grand strategy and LOS. But grand strategy can be a waste if you field too less units that can benefit from them, like scouting/outflanking Dreadknights or scoring Psyfleman Dreads.

No, the main reason for including allies should be your armies theme, or to use extra models in your collection, or to use a force that you've started collecting but haven't got enough points for a standalone army yet.

People who use allies to gain a tabletop advantage by safeguarding their armies weakness or exploiting a powerful combo are TFG, and should be avoided where possible.

 Kaldor wrote:
No, the main reason for including allies should be your armies theme, or to use extra models in your collection, or to use a force that you've started collecting but haven't got enough points for a standalone army yet.

People who use allies to gain a tabletop advantage by safeguarding their armies weakness or exploiting a powerful combo are TFG, and should be avoided where possible.

Thats a bit harsh. Not all warhammer is casual or fluff related play. Some people want to play competative warhammer, and they find their enjoyment in winning. Its a players right to decide how to play the game for their own enjoyment. But thats besides the point.. This was directed specifically at people who are playing in such competative circles.

OTT response there Kaldor. Calling anyone using allies to play the game TFG is pretty out of order.

While I agree there should be a narrative theme or link to the alliance, it doesn't mean someone using an allied unit simply because it's good is TFG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hetelic wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
No, the main reason for including allies should be your armies theme, or to use extra models in your collection, or to use a force that you've started collecting but haven't got enough points for a standalone army yet.

People who use allies to gain a tabletop advantage by safeguarding their armies weakness or exploiting a powerful combo are TFG, and should be avoided where possible.

Thats a bit harsh. Not all warhammer is casual or fluff related play. Some people want to play competative warhammer, and they find their enjoyment in winning. Its a players right to decide how to play the game for their own enjoyment. But thats besides the point.. This was directed specifically at people who are playing in such competative circles.

Like this. It wouldn't surprise me to see FoC altering characters come into play more. Look at it this way: I can take AD company master, Tac squad and 1 unit of DW Terminators as allies in Guard.
Or
I can take Belial, and now those Terminators are the troops I need to include Terminators.
List one is about 390 points to get the Termies in.
List 2 is 345, and I have a more durable character in there too, as well as not having the Tac I don't want. On top of that, I can also take more Terminators as troops if I want.

 Kaldor wrote:
No, the main reason for including allies should be your armies theme, or to use extra models in your collection, or to use a force that you've started collecting but haven't got enough points for a standalone army yet.

People who use allies to gain a tabletop advantage by safeguarding their armies weakness or exploiting a powerful combo are TFG, and should be avoided where possible.

People used to say the same thing about Special Characters, and they were banned from general usage at many events. Allies are just the new thing.

 Kaldor wrote:
No, the main reason for including allies should be your armies theme, or to use extra models in your collection, or to use a force that you've started collecting but haven't got enough points for a standalone army yet.

People who use allies to gain a tabletop advantage by safeguarding their armies weakness or exploiting a powerful combo are TFG, and should be avoided where possible.

So wait, I'm TFG for wanting to take an ally that will make my army better? One of the purposes of the allies system is to plug the holes in your army (close combat units in a Guard army, for example) or make what your army's already good at even better. Ideally these units will be fitting of your theme, but not everyone's allying in a Psyfleman Dreadnought with Coteaz and his not-quite meltavets.

I guess I'm TFG because 3 LRBTs are better than my single Looted equivalent.

 DeffDred wrote:
I guess I'm TFG because 3 LRBTs are better than my single Looted equivalent.

Damn straight you are! Quit exploiting the allies matrix and make sure all your allied Troops sections are full of Penal Legion!

There is no such thing as troop tax.

Those troops can cap an objective, they really are worth having around.

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is no such thing as troop tax.

Those troops can cap an objective, they really are worth having around.

There's such a thing as a troop tax when said troops are worse than those in your own Codex or cost quite a bit while not doing anything other than sitting at an objective.

 Brother SRM wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
No, the main reason for including allies should be your armies theme, or to use extra models in your collection, or to use a force that you've started collecting but haven't got enough points for a standalone army yet.

People who use allies to gain a tabletop advantage by safeguarding their armies weakness or exploiting a powerful combo are TFG, and should be avoided where possible.

So wait, I'm TFG for wanting to take an ally that will make my army better? One of the purposes of the allies system is to plug the holes in your army (close combat units in a Guard army, for example) or make what your army's already good at even better. Ideally these units will be fitting of your theme, but not everyone's allying in a Psyfleman Dreadnought with Coteaz and his not-quite meltavets.

Well, yeah. If you're just doing it so you can win more easily that's pretty much the definition of TFG. It's no different to building a Purifier spam list or Necron airforce.

dude this means everything you ever take in an army is making you TFG , unless your taking spawn class units . How is it possible to make an army with units that dont make it easier to win , do you load up your GK with psi lancers and stuff ?
ally are in official rules , they are as illega/WAAC/TFG as taking a Lemman Russ in an IG army or terminators in DA/GK.

There's such a thing as a troop tax when said troops are worse than those in your own Codex or cost quite a bit while not doing anything other than sitting at an objective.

100% true . I start every IG army with a SW Rune Priest and some plasma GH , they are a huge boost to my aegis line based army . A cheap support HQ , a good and cheap meq stats unit that is both ok for counters and shoting , I would have to be mad to not take them .

Makumba wrote:
dude this means everything you ever take in an army is making you TFG , unless your taking spawn class units . How is it possible to make an army with units that dont make it easier to win , do you load up your GK with psi lancers and stuff ?
ally are in official rules , they are as illega/WAAC/TFG as taking a Lemman Russ in an IG army or terminators in DA/GK.

Any army built purely to win with no thought given to theme or aesthetic fits that category.

There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line.

I use them to specifically fix problems with my force, SM are very dead when it comes to long range fire power, so tau are my go too.
But because the white scars consider the Tau a force or worthy warriors.
But when im playing against other imperium armies the joke is i'm the traitor.

If you're playing in a competitive tournament or highly competitive game/group that's agreed to bring 'no holds bar' type lists, than there's nothing wrong with pulling out the super efficient lists. So allying in say Draigo + Pallies to a SW Longfang spam army shouldn't cause anyone any butt-hurt. (you signed up for it after all!)
But, going into your local 'friendly gaming night' with a super mathhammered/'uber efficient list that's using allies simply to create a roflstomping monster list is being a complete TFG!

But then, I've found that 40k has become more like a profesional sporting event to most players than an actual fun game over the past few years...

40k is nothing like a sporting event or other competitive game. The very fact that you can be considered a bad person for taking a rules-legal list indicates how incredibly noncompetitive the community is. It's why GW continues to produce the obtuse ruleset and slow updates, because of that belief that only competitive players care about tight, consistent rules.

GW defined an ally matrix. They're all legal and their efficacy varies, which defines the value of adding them to other codexes. 40k's lore is diverse enough that one can justify ANY legal combination and even army. The people claiming it violates aesthetic are simultaneously bad at the game and at imagination.

The only reason any list should be a problem is if you have agreed to keep it competitive or fluffy. If you really want an all out kill machine for a list just make sure your opponet understands that so they dont bring their less than competitive but fluffy list. After all you dont want to be know as "that guy" everytine you walk in the store and never have anyone that want to play you.

 Kaldor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
dude this means everything you ever take in an army is making you TFG , unless your taking spawn class units . How is it possible to make an army with units that dont make it easier to win , do you load up your GK with psi lancers and stuff ?
ally are in official rules , they are as illega/WAAC/TFG as taking a Lemman Russ in an IG army or terminators in DA/GK.

Any army built purely to win with no thought given to theme or aesthetic fits that category.

There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line.

I don't see why getting a better list is a TFG thing, what about people who just like to play and don't like the fluff? So they are TFG because they don't have any preferences of the fluff they like?

And if you see that your list is missing something and you need something to aid that part and an ally branch does exactly that then why wouldn't you?

If it is legal it is completely fine.

It's not the player's fault for bringing something that's allowed.

What if someone liked the flying necron list? and they found some fluff to support it? then what?

I dont field allies, mostly because my second army are Orks, and if i fielded them alongside my Blood Ravens that would be fluff-breaking.
And i dont like fielding Unique characters anyway so.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is no such thing as troop tax.

Those troops can cap an objective, they really are worth having around.

There's such a thing as a troop tax when said troops are worse than those in your own Codex or cost quite a bit while not doing anything other than sitting at an objective.

and an example of such a unit would be?

 Kaldor wrote:
No, the main reason for including allies should be your armies theme, or to use extra models in your collection, or to use a force that you've started collecting but haven't got enough points for a standalone army yet.

People who use allies to gain a tabletop advantage by safeguarding their armies weakness or exploiting a powerful combo are TFG, and should be avoided where possible.

I think the way that you are making your point is a bit harsh, but I agree with the basic sentiment.

It's true. If you are thinking about "list building" and "force multipliers" and stuff like that with regards to 40k, you are just totally missing the point. 40k is a tabletop RPG, not an exercise in competition. You should be thinking of allies in terms of how they can add to the game or allow you to use your fledgling armies. You should NOT be thinking of how to abuse the allies system to plug holes in your army and break faces.

The game isn't designed from a competitive standpoint, and neither should it be played from a (strictly) competitive standpoint. Square peg, round hole, and all that.

But, that's all I am going to say on the matter because I realize that I am mainly preaching to the choir here and that the point is nearly entirely lost on those who don't get it.

 Makutsu wrote:
What if someone liked the flying necron list? and they found some fluff to support it? then what?

Then that person is going to have a hard time finding opponents.

Because being that guy is, well, being TFG.

If you've got a group of players that really enjoys the challenge of building the most OP lists they can, then knock yourself out. That's fine. But taking that same list to 'regular' games is a douche move. People aren't expecting it, and don't want to fight it, and using allies to push your list in that direction is as much a douche move as building your list that way with your codex.

Every unit has their strengths, why would you take a unit that would be worse than your own anyway? I cant see anyone taking a BA JP army for example and saying "you know what this needs? some BT Initiates as a troop choice!" It just wouldnt happen, well it might but then why once again outside of fluff maybe?

If you see Troops as a Tax, you're doing it wrong. Troops in many armies are good units, and more scoring units is always a good thing and can give you an advantage over a non-allies using opponent. It also means you may need fewer troops in your Core force so you can min/max that better.

Back on Topic:
For an example taking Guardians or Rangers in a Dark Eldar Army does somewhat bring down the mobility, and they aren't cheap too.
If I could I would just bring a Farseer to the game.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
What if someone liked the flying necron list? and they found some fluff to support it? then what?

Then that person is going to have a hard time finding opponents.

Because being that guy is, well, being TFG.

If you've got a group of players that really enjoys the challenge of building the most OP lists they can, then knock yourself out. That's fine. But taking that same list to 'regular' games is a douche move. People aren't expecting it, and don't want to fight it, and using allies to push your list in that direction is as much a douche move as building your list that way with your codex.

So if someone enjoys the fluff and builds a fluff based army that is just strong due to GWs somewhat broken rules then he is TFG? even if he is nice and friendly?

You are misunderstanding TFG and things that you don't like.

It's like wanting to play a game where you want to be handicapped and asking your opponent to do so as well.

That's nice and all if you were friends and stuff but I don't see why people have to follow you around to be handicapped.

 Makutsu wrote:
So if someone enjoys the fluff and builds a fluff based army that is just strong due to GWs somewhat broken rules then he is TFG? even if he is nice and friendly?

Yes. Because he's deliberately doing things that people don't like. Building an over-powered roflstomping list for use in 'regular' games for example.

That's the definition of TFG.

Kaldor sounds mad because now everyone can partake of some of his GK cheesiness.

Fight fire with fire.

Or paladins with paladins. And better heavy support if you happen to be guard.

 Kaldor wrote:
No, the main reason for including allies should be your armies theme, or to use extra models in your collection, or to use a force that you've started collecting but haven't got enough points for a standalone army yet.

People who use allies to gain a tabletop advantage by safeguarding their armies weakness or exploiting a powerful combo are TFG, and should be avoided where possible.

Ok I take issue with this, Belial and his TH/SS troops are the best ally in the game, I have run them with Space Wolves, Tau, and up next is Imperial Guard.

IMO they are the best allies in the game, you throw a cyclone in each squad and even only being able to take 5 is a good thing, as they can go in different directions to harass the enemy. I played a lot of early games with 2-3 flyers until I realized how much of an advantage they gave me, and now I haven't run them in the last two games I have played. Just because a game is casual doesn't mean you should bring out the roughriders, wolf scouts, and vespids. I don't care if this makes me TFG, but I consider myself fairly competitive, I don't go into a game with a gak list just because the game is casual. I ran a 3 Long Fang squads on a pad, WL an 3 TWs with Belial and his 10 TH/SS buddies and the game was fun, it was the relic an thanks to a warlord trait I was able to get the relic first an hold on to it, he killed a ton of my crap, an I killed a bunch of his crap, we both had fun. I bought the DA as an allied detachment specifically for that reason, I don't need more tac squads and marine bikers.

I take allies so my Unforgiven Chapter's Second Company can operate some nifty-looking aircraft along with their bikes and speeders. The tactical marines serve the purpose of looking cool while garrisoning a building and providing fire support for my First Company blokes.

valace2 wrote:
I don't care if this makes me TFG

Well, yeah. That's how you get to be that guy.

 Kaldor wrote:


Well, yeah. That's how you get to be that guy.

Or you could just adopt the cheesiest special character from the cheesiest army list as your online persona. Might as well go get TFG tattoo on your forehead.

 Kaldor wrote:

valace2 wrote:
I don't care if this makes me TFG

Well, yeah. That's how you get to be that guy.

oh so I am not that guy yet?

Well geeeee thanks I feel so much better now.

Ya know what the guy I played wouldn't consider me TFG, an we both agreed that Belial and his buddies will prolly become one of the most common allies you see, just because of how much hurt they can put on an opponent.

Why would I take DA allies for bikes or tac marines? The point of taking allies is to improve my army. I am not taking a Tau allied detachment for fire warriors or pathfinders I am taking them to get Str10 AP1 shots into my army.

Kevlar wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:


Well, yeah. That's how you get to be that guy.

Or you could just adopt the cheesiest special character from the cheesiest army list as your online persona. Might as well go get TFG tattoo on your forehead.

Online persona? How bout you go play in the corner. The adults are talking.

valace2 wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

valace2 wrote:
I don't care if this makes me TFG

Well, yeah. That's how you get to be that guy.

oh so I am not that guy yet?

I dunno, depends how much you take your opponents enjoyment into account when building your list.

We know the game balance isn't perfect. We know some army builds are extremely powerful and difficult to beat. For some groups, this is why they play 40K. I think it's a bit misguided myself, the rules are too poorly written to appropriately support competitive play, but more power to them if that's what they want to do.

But knowingly taking those over-powered builds to 'regular' games nights with no regard for your opponents, and only viewing allies as a way to increase the power of your lists, makes you that guy.

Well then according to you I am TFG, funny how none of the guys I game with would say the same thing.

I had 4 scoring units, 2 small squishy units of Grey Hunters an 2 5 man th/ss squads. I rolled well getting the warlord trait that made my Wolf Lord scoring an being on a thunderwolf mount an going first there was no way I was not getting to the relic. Seems like I made every roll I needed to before the game, if it would have been a multi objective game I prolly would have had a lot harder time winning.

I added some hammer units to my army but in a multi objective game it was an ok list, I wouldn't consider it overpowered an neither would a lot of people. 6th has been out what two an a half months now, so no one really knows what is powerful an what isn't, people say that the Necron airfore is the shiz, but I doubt I will ever play against it, because none of the guys I game with are that douchey.

With your logic though, because I added only 2 units of TH/SS terminators I am TFG. Well so be it.

An the guy I gamed with had a good time, so yea I dunno what that is supposed to mean because I am TFG.

 Kaldor wrote:

Kevlar wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Well, yeah. That's how you get to be that guy.

Or you could just adopt the cheesiest special character from the cheesiest army list as your online persona. Might as well go get TFG tattoo on your forehead.

Online persona? How bout you go play in the corner. The adults are talking.

If you're judging other people as being jerks for playing differently with their toy soldiers, and for using stuff you consider overpowered, while identifying yourself with a character which is widely viewed as overpowered, and was banned from events until a relatively short while ago, that's more that a little ironic.

Also, dismissing other people as children is rude and inappropriate.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Kevlar wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Well, yeah. That's how you get to be that guy.

Or you could just adopt the cheesiest special character from the cheesiest army list as your online persona. Might as well go get TFG tattoo on your forehead.

Online persona? How bout you go play in the corner. The adults are talking.

If you're judging other people as being jerks for playing differently with their toy soldiers, and for using stuff you consider overpowered, while identifying yourself with a character which is widely viewed as overpowered, and was banned from events until a relatively short while ago, that's more that a little ironic.

Also, dismissing other people as children is rude and inappropriate.

I wasn't going to say that, thanks for doing it for me.

I wouldn't consider Draigo overpowered, I would consider him overrated.

An I am a Grey Knight player.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
So if someone enjoys the fluff and builds a fluff based army that is just strong due to GWs somewhat broken rules then he is TFG? even if he is nice and friendly?

Yes. Because he's deliberately doing things that people don't like. Building an over-powered roflstomping list for use in 'regular' games for example.

That's the definition of TFG.

By your definition if people don't like how you dress does that make you a TFG? since you are deliberately dressing the way that people don't like.

If he's using a over powered list then you use an overpowered list, so simple. It's like playing a sport and the other person has better equipment, and you tell him that he's an a**hole for using better equipment. Doesn't make much sense sorry.

valace2 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
If you're judging other people as being jerks for playing differently with their toy soldiers, and for using stuff you consider overpowered, while identifying yourself with a character which is widely viewed as overpowered, and was banned from events until a relatively short while ago, that's more that a little ironic.

Also, dismissing other people as children is rude and inappropriate.

I wasn't going to say that, thanks for doing it for me.

I wouldn't consider Draigo overpowered, I would consider him overrated.

An I am a Grey Knight player.

Sure, but that doesn't affect the point. I don't think I'd consider Draigo overpowered anymore either. But the perception is there, just as Kaldor perceives allies to be overpowered. In either case, people are being silly by condemning others for their choice of which toys to play with, both of which are within the rules of the game. I find his condemnations particularly ironic, because I can remember previous editions of the game when special characters in general were regarded as unbalanced and not playtested like the rest of the codex, and banned from most competitive events. Which is remarkably similar to how some folks are now reacting to Allies.

Honestly I don't disagree with all of Kaldor's opinions. If a player brings something which IS overpowered, or at least overpowered for the context he's playing in, yeah, that can be a jerk move. You should always be willing to communicate with opponents and make sure you're both coming to the game with compatible expectations. To ignore or violate the other person's expectations for the game is being TFG.

Hetelic wrote:
Remembering that I’m still new to 40k, and that some parts of this post may be incorrect, I’ve been thinking a lot about the inclusion of allies in 40k armies.
I’ve listened to a few podcasts and 1 in particular: The 11th Company, have talked at length about including an allied detachment in your primary army. The focus of much of the debate regarding allies lies in –WHAT- allies to take, how many points to spend on allies, and other issues of efficiency and list building.

From what I can understand, the main reasons to include allies in your 40k army is to either safeguard your armies weakness (ie, wolf priests for psychic defence); or to further enhance your armies strength (ie, Deathwing Terminators). When looking at allies in these terms, very few (if any) lists are taking allies for troops. In fact, it appears that the allied troop choice is just a minimum unit that allows you to unlock the more specialised Elite/ Heavy/ Fast options. In this respect, the troop choice you must take could be considered a “tax” for taking other units.
So I then considered how to manipulate this “tax”, going on the principle that a competitive list will maximise the important elements, and minimise the chaff.

So (finally getting to the point), is this the area where “force multiplier” characters really shine? Example, some people suggest that Draigo is very over-costed a 2XX points; however, if you really want to add Paladins to your space marines, does this become the most efficient way to do it? Likewise, if you really want to add SM terminators to your Guard, is Belial more cost effective than a DA captain and a 5man tac squad?
I think this is especially prevalent with non-special characters that allow FoC manipulation, like a Biker-Boss or SM bike Captain. A biker boss allows you to add a Nob biker squad to an allied army, without the “tax2 of paying for additional troops, and the boss adds to the unit to enhance its effectiveness.

Am I barking up the wrong tree?? Is Draigo always overpriced, and nothing can offset that? Or will we begin to see more of these “force multiplier” characters as the Meta-game changes, and more specific unit counters are required?

Many thanks, Hetelic

Back to your original topic, I would say Draigo an Paladins would be a poor ally choice, he costs so much an they don't do enough. You would have to play at least a 2k game to make it work even remotely well. Belial is the best character for this purpose as he adds the ability to take TH/SS terminators with cyclones. At 130pts the guy is amazing, an I would assume when a new DA codex comes out he will cost more, so enjoy him now.

There are a lot of troops out there which are not that bad to take, Grey Hunters being one because of their cheap cost 2 base attacks an ability to take 2 plasma/melta for 5pts. Fire Warriors are the other, sure you want Broadsides if you are taking Tau as allies but the fire warriors got a huge boost with the change to rapid fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:

valace2 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
If you're judging other people as being jerks for playing differently with their toy soldiers, and for using stuff you consider overpowered, while identifying yourself with a character which is widely viewed as overpowered, and was banned from events until a relatively short while ago, that's more that a little ironic.

Also, dismissing other people as children is rude and inappropriate.

I wasn't going to say that, thanks for doing it for me.

I wouldn't consider Draigo overpowered, I would consider him overrated.

An I am a Grey Knight player.

Sure, but that doesn't affect the point. I don't think I'd consider Draigo overpowered anymore either. But the perception is there, just as Kaldor perceives allies to be overpowered. In either case, people are being silly by condemning others for their choice of which toys to play with, both of which are within the rules of the game. I find his condemnations particularly ironic, because I can remember previous editions of the game when special characters in general were regarded as unbalanced and not playtested like the rest of the codex, and banned from most competitive events. Which is remarkably similar to how some folks are now reacting to Allies.

Honestly I don't disagree with all of Kaldor's opinions. If a player brings something which IS overpowered, or at least overpowered for the context he's playing in, yeah, that can be a jerk move. You should always be willing to communicate with opponents and make sure you're both coming to the game with compatible expectations. To ignore or violate the other person's expectations for the game is being TFG.

I completely agree. I am fortunate enough to have a great group of guys to game with, I know usually what they will be bringing, and they have a good idea of what I will be bringing.

A lot of good things said in this thread... I really like the new allies ability... I like to think that GW put some kind of thought into it to keep people from "breaking" it (they also had fluff to follow lol) My first ally army was a CSM/Daemons Epidemius list... and after playing it, I felt like a jerk... I wasn't rude while playing the game (with some buddies at our local gaming spot), but it was like Whoa! this allies thing has to be used carefully. It was in a 4k vs 4k game and sine we are all a little more educated (and considerate) of what lists we bring. Don't get me wrong, now that everyone has had time to get models and build allies, we occasionally bring what we call "A-hole" lists that are played for fun (but usually ending in competitive arguements lol). But I would not walk into a brand new gaming spot and plop down an Epidemius list... I definately agree with some on here that you should let your opponent know what your list has been built for-- fun or competition. I also like the allies because it gives me the opportunity to pick up some of the cooler models that I would otherwise not be able to play!

I think the allies addition is a good thing, if you only think about the newest armies, yeah it could be a bit game-breaking, but think about the older codices who probably won't see an updated codex anytime soon, they could somehow patch their army up some, if they choose to, and stay competitive. Also new possibilities to lists.

Personally, I don't intend to take any allies, might be because of the fact that the two armies of my choice haven't got much allies at all (), or that I really don't want to pay the troop tax, especially if it's not the troop that I want from the allies, or that I'm a purist, I'm being fictionally racist toward the craftworld losers.

Sad to say, Imperium benefits more from the allies matrix being that everyone is BFF with everyone(sans xenos that is not tau..), as mentioned, want terminators/bikes/etc as scoring unit? Well, get an ally to give you that if your army can't do that! If only I could bring Eldar and somehow make my grotesques a scoring unit as well...

I tend to feel more like it's an HQ tax. Of course, my SM armies in 5th ed would generally just run a Chaplain with a jump pack as its HQ because it was the cheapest HQ that was good for something. Things seem to have shifted to where a beefy HQ is actually a good idea and I haven't gotten the memo yet, so maybe that's why some people view it as a troop tax. Really though, most codices have a reasonably useful troop choice that you can take. Even if all it does is sit on an objective, it's useful. I honestly can't think of any codex pairings where the troops from one are strictly inferior to the troops from the other.

From a troop standpoint basic marines are outclassed by either Deathwing, Grey hunters, Blood Angel assault squads, infantry platoons or any of myriad GK incarnations. Literally every imperial army aside from C:SM get 'better' troops. The strength of the vanilla codex are the select few efficiencies that crop up and unique models like thunderfires and stormtalons.

That for many is the definition of tax, if you want the few vanilla goodies you have to tax yourself with a less appealing choice.

 Kaldor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
dude this means everything you ever take in an army is making you TFG , unless your taking spawn class units . How is it possible to make an army with units that dont make it easier to win , do you load up your GK with psi lancers and stuff ?
ally are in official rules , they are as illega/WAAC/TFG as taking a Lemman Russ in an IG army or terminators in DA/GK.

Any army built purely to win with no thought given to theme or aesthetic fits that category.

There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line.

fething eh! That is spot on Kaldor.

If you do this you are an absolute **** and should be hung drawn and quartered. For real bro.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

valace2 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Kevlar wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Well, yeah. That's how you get to be that guy.

Or you could just adopt the cheesiest special character from the cheesiest army list as your online persona. Might as well go get TFG tattoo on your forehead.

Online persona? How bout you go play in the corner. The adults are talking.

If you're judging other people as being jerks for playing differently with their toy soldiers, and for using stuff you consider overpowered, while identifying yourself with a character which is widely viewed as overpowered, and was banned from events until a relatively short while ago, that's more that a little ironic.

Also, dismissing other people as children is rude and inappropriate.

I wasn't going to say that, thanks for doing it for me.

I wouldn't consider Draigo overpowered, I would consider him overrated.

An I am a Grey Knight player.

Those who call GK's overpowered are just upset they cannot beat them, so jump on the Matt Ward-hating bandwagon, despite not really knowing why they hate him. They just read 1d4chan and have jumped on the bandwagon to cover up there frustration. True story.

Also, I don't think Kaldor is 'judging people'. This is an internet forum, which makes that quite difficult by it's nature because these are just words and profile pictures. It's not as if he is racially profiling people so get a grip man.
Kaldor is just speaking the truth. And the truth hurts to all the TFG's here who are taking Allies just to win. And WAAC players are invariably unpleasant people to play. If you are putting so much effort into WAAC you need to get a life. Sorry if that is 'rude' or 'inappropriate' to your sensitive feelings.

Playing to win is not the same thing as being TFG. It really isn't. Equating the two is, frankly, insulting. Playing to win and playing to have fun also aren't mutually exclusive; in fact, I'd argue that an opponent that isn't even trying to win is a pretty dull opponent.

 Kaldor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
dude this means everything you ever take in an army is making you TFG , unless your taking spawn class units . How is it possible to make an army with units that dont make it easier to win , do you load up your GK with psi lancers and stuff ?
ally are in official rules , they are as illega/WAAC/TFG as taking a Lemman Russ in an IG army or terminators in DA/GK.

Any army built purely to win with no thought given to theme or aesthetic fits that category.

There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line.

Oh boy you must hate tournament players. How DARE we try to actually win a game! You know what the best looking list i saw at nova was Necorns/GK he took Renaissance man because he made them look good together. Allies are not a TFG move they are simply a mechanic inserted by GW top let us play the game and start small armies that eventually turn into full armies. Unless your tyranids in which case buy more gaunts.

Now back to the OP: there is no troops tax and there is no problem with using allies. Generally you should use allies to cover your armies weaknesses or to add punch to your list.

Theme and Aesthetic? Space Marines and Imperial Guard work together all of the time. Different chapters of Space Marines work together all of the time. Necrons and Blood Angels Bro-Fisted that one time.

None of these make anyone TFG. TFG can be TFG playing with Nids or playing with Dark Angels or playing with Tau and Ork allies.

As for the troops being a tax, it all depends on what you're looking for in your allies, doesn't it?

If you are taking something for the troops choice, then no. That isn't a tax, as you're getting exactly what you want.

If you are wanting access to LR Battle Tanks, then a few squads of veterans would be a tax. However, melta-vets and plasma-vets in a chimera are still pretty nice and not over the top expensive, so that aren't too much of a tax.

I find it quite amusing to see people talk about Allies as overpowered, game-breaking cheese engines. After all, back in earlier editions of the game allies were a core thing - 2nd ed in particular featured rules for allying in the Black Codex and the later full codices - and it's absence from later editions caused problems for some particular forces. (I'm thinking Sisters of Battle who, when their WD 'dex was 5th Ed, lost a whole swathe of options.)

Now I do prefer to play games with people whose armies have fluffy touches rather than being all mechanics - and undeniably reintroducing allies is going to produce some odd situations players haven't been used to for a while. but to be honest I'm more bothered by the normalisation of Special Characters away from the "your opponents permission" status (and the powers of said characters being army-design-changing and thusly not easilly removed from some forces.) than the terrible thought that my Tau opponent might throw some Howling Banshees at me without a fluff reason for it.

I don't care much for tournament play, though, and think some of the codices are already pretty unbalanced. If you turn up to a tournament and get crushed by a strange allied contingent when last year you'd have crushed that army in it's "pure" form then that's perhaps going to make you feel different - but I'm not sure I'd be playing with you anyway. :-)

Re: the OP's point: yes, there is sort of a tax in that you have to take an HQ and Troop rather than the stuff you "really" want. Your allied Land Raider can't just appear out of thin air: you need to back it up with a Space Marine Librarian and Tactical Squad or whatever. Still, as others have said, Troops are always useful for objectives so it's not the end of the world. Yes, in some cases you are forced to get "worse" troops than your standard , but I think in most cases you won't begrudge your one troops choice.

Those who call GK's overpowered are just upset they cannot beat them, so jump on the Matt Ward-hating bandwagon, despite not really knowing why they hate him. They just read 1d4chan and have jumped on the bandwagon to cover up there frustration. True story.

I hate GK being one of the Top Tier Cheesy dex's.

I don't hate Matt Ward however, considering the other writer's aren't much better at balance.

Got a better theory?

If I could still import/buy from outside the country, I'd toy around with the idea of havinf Leman Russes with my SWs again just for kicks.

I want to add some Leman Russes to my Space Marines, and with them comes a platoon of IG infantry. These plug the void of long-range firepower in my Marine army and generally make my army better. This apparently makes me TFG for some reason. Taking a Dreadnought with autocannons, or a devastator squad would probably make my army better as well. Does that make me TFG?

(Hint: The answer is no)

Exactly SRM, Does taking a drop podding melta sternguad make me a TFG for how good it is? No it doesnt. Its not different from taking an over powered unit in your own codex.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Exactly SRM, Does taking a drop podding melta sternguad make me a TFG for how good it is? No it doesnt. Its not different from taking an over powered unit in your own codex.

And even then, these units aren't overpowered, they're just good.

My tau army has an ally marine contingent that I use as marines who defected to the tau. Sure I may take assault terminators as an elite choice and assault marines as my fast attack to cover my cc weakness, but I don't think that's being tfg.

 psychadelicmime wrote:
My tau army has an ally marine contingent that I use as marines who defected to the tau. Sure I may take assault terminators as an elite choice and assault marines as my fast attack to cover my cc weakness, but I don't think that's being tfg.

It isn't, it's using the rules as intended to plug a gap in your codex. Honestly, I don't see the point in Allies whining since everyone but Tyranids can take them.

Allies are totally TFG move!

After all you don't follow the strict tactics that the codex tells you to follow! you DARE attempt a bit of originality and something SLIGHTLY different then the armies we have seen for years.

The NERVE. to DARE do anything new, or even want to WIN the game? heck no! you are supposed to find how to waste as many points as possible in your list, making it as weak as humanly (or xenoly) possible.

And if you ever win a game because your list was better then your opponent's, you shold quit the hobby immediately because you are an a$$h0le.

 Makutsu wrote:
Back on Topic:
For an example taking Guardians or Rangers in a Dark Eldar Army does somewhat bring down the mobility, and they aren't cheap too.
If I could I would just bring a Farseer to the game.

So why don't you take 3 guardian jetbikes with a Shuricannon? Only cost just under 80 points, and they have a +1S Heavy Bolter that can JSJ.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
Back on Topic:
For an example taking Guardians or Rangers in a Dark Eldar Army does somewhat bring down the mobility, and they aren't cheap too.
If I could I would just bring a Farseer to the game.

So why don't you take 3 guardian jetbikes with a Shuricannon? Only cost just under 80 points, and they have a +1S Heavy Bolter that can JSJ.

but for about the same cost I could get a venom which is way better than what it does, of course I have to get a squad as well but overall it's not as good IMHO.

Also, 3 bikes is pretty squishy and they don't really help out Dark Eldar's weakness.

Rangers are the only things I find useful since they can help us grab objectives as we can't anymore in vehicles which we are always in... which fixes one major problem.

 captain collius wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
dude this means everything you ever take in an army is making you TFG , unless your taking spawn class units . How is it possible to make an army with units that dont make it easier to win , do you load up your GK with psi lancers and stuff ?
ally are in official rules , they are as illega/WAAC/TFG as taking a Lemman Russ in an IG army or terminators in DA/GK.

Any army built purely to win with no thought given to theme or aesthetic fits that category.

There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line.

Oh boy you must hate tournament players. How DARE we try to actually win a game! .... Allies are not a TFG move they are simply a mechanic inserted by GW top let us play the game and start small armies that eventually turn into full armies. Unless your tyranids in which case buy more gaunts...Generally you should use allies to cover your armies weaknesses or to add punch to your list.

Oh dear God...You really need to take a reality check, because if you really believe that Allies "are simply a mechanic inserted by GW top let us play the game and start small armies that eventually turn into full armies" , you are clearly naive and deluded. The reason they have added Allies is to get people to buy more models and increase profits. It's as simple as that. Like a lot of the new rules in 6th edition, they are designed solely to make money: Flyers, Allies and recently the way they have FAQ'd a lot of special codex rules out of existence (see the Lumbering Behemen scratch) are all rule changes with the sole purpose of shifting the more expensive models and a wider variety of models.

"Generally, you should use allies to cover your armies weaknesses or to add punch to your list." Wow, do you work for GW? Sounds like it. That, or you are incredibly naive.
Why play - say for example - Imperial Guard or Tau if you don't like their weakness in CC? Go play something else, rather than attempting to patch them up with Allies. You are ruining the character of the army, and what's worse, if Allies becomes the norm it's not fair on the rest of us who aren't WAAC or TFG and who just want to play to our armies strengths, not patch it up with pure cheese.

Of course, Allies can give us cool ideas too like Traitor Guard, Tau Human Auxillaries, Daemons and Chaos Tzeentch armies, Inquistion forcs etc etc. But you just know this is going to be impossible to regulate or prove and it's going to spiral into TFG bs where it's all WAAC and no one can be remotely competitive without allies.

I wish people would wake up and see the truth under the 'cinematic narrative experience' (haha, yeah right), but most people won't. Bunch of fething TFG who should've been drowned at birth if you ask me....

Invisible Jesus wrote:

Oh dear God...You really need to take a reality check, because if you really believe that Allies "are simply a mechanic inserted by GW top let us play the game and start small armies that eventually turn into full armies" , you are clearly naive and deluded. The reason they have added Allies is to get people to buy more models and increase profits. It's as simple as that. Like a lot of the new rules in 6th edition, they are designed solely to make money: Flyers, Allies and recently the way they have FAQ'd a lot of special codex rules out of existence (see the Lumbering Behemen scratch) are all rule changes with the sole purpose of shifting the more expensive models and a wider variety of models.

"Generally, you should use allies to cover your armies weaknesses or to add punch to your list." Wow, do you work for GW? Sounds like it. That, or you are incredibly naive.
Why play - say for example - Imperial Guard or Tau if you don't like their weakness in CC? Go play something else, rather than attempting to patch them up with Allies. You are ruining the character of the army, and what's worse, if Allies becomes the norm it's not fair on the rest of us who aren't WAAC or TFG and who just want to play to our armies strengths, not patch it up with pure cheese.

Of course, Allies can give us cool ideas too like Traitor Guard, Tau Human Auxillaries, Daemons and Chaos Tzeentch armies, Inquistion forcs etc etc. But you just know this is going to be impossible to regulate or prove and it's going to spiral into TFG bs where it's all WAAC and no one can be remotely competitive without allies.

I wish people would wake up and see the truth under the 'cinematic narrative experience' (haha, yeah right), but most people won't. Bunch of fething TFG who should've been drowned at birth if you ask me....

You played an IG parking lot in 5th didn't you? Or a BA mech list, or a Purifier spam list, or maybe a Razor/Long Fang spam list in 5th I would guess. Its not so easy to win anymore is it?

I think alot of people are getting a little bit heated in this argument. There's no need for anyone to get personal or start insulting.
In any case, I don't see the reason the OP is being insulted for discussing competitive tactics. I don't play tournaments, and I build lists purely for fluff, but that doesn't mean competitive play should be shunned. There is an entire scene of people who play competetetively against one another. That doesn't mean they're TFG, just that they like that gaming style.

The OP made this thread for a discussion on a specific tactic. Perhaps it's time to honor his intentions and actually talk about the thread.

Invisible Jesus wrote:
Oh dear God...You really need to take a reality check

Right back at ya.

Invisible Jesus wrote:
Why play - say for example - Imperial Guard or Tau if you don't like their weakness in CC? Go play something else, rather than attempting to patch them up with Allies. You are ruining the character of the army

Yes, because they don't do it on the fluff ALL THE TIME?

Heck, some of them (Tau and Eldar the prime examples) FAVOR doing it whenever possible, although Eldar tend to trick others to do stuff they cant, and while Tau generally prefer to keep it "clean" by avoiding melee-they got no issue others doing it for them. (not to mention I can make conversion to make anything I want into an "experimental weapon/suit")
And as for the IG-the entire freaking concept of the IG fluff is to hold the line until someone better trained and equipped shows up to eradicate the enemy. (Wait, blood angles don't count as "better trained and equipped unit of the Imperium of man?")

And if I patch up my tau's weak melee with some blood angles-so what? I still paid points for it, and that means I got myself better melee from your average Tau, but i gave up some of my shooting to do so. its a fair trade, it cost me, and the "Tau's BA" are not as effective as true BA-they have limitations placed on them.

No, I dont like how Tau have nothing at all to respond at melee, but I DO love anything else about them. and I would very much like some hard-hitting melee units to be used as meatshields for the rest of the army, as any sane tactician would do. (and tau ARE sane)
Yes, I like the MotF to walk around with that nasty conversion beamer to back up my broadsides, yes I want that thunderfire cannon to slow down enemy units, and yes I want an ironclad to serve as a roadblock to interrupt enemy advancement, but the list is still a TAU list, not a marine list. because it has suit squads JSJ around, and broadsides nuking tanks from afar, and FW in fish going FoF on targets of opportunity and setting up to take objectives at endgame as the main force, and just a few marine units to back up that Tau way of war.

Invisible Jesus wrote:
and what's worse, if Allies becomes the norm it's not fair on the rest of us who aren't WAAC or TFG and who just want to play to our armies strengths, not patch it up with pure cheese.

Allies are not "more power" they are "more options". if more options was equal power, the vanilla marines would have been the strongest marine codex, and knights/wolves/BA seem to be widely considered stronger. why? because despite having less options, the things they got have better inner working, while vanilla marines just pile up many types of units with a total lack of synergy. it's not weaker statlines or higher costs-its the fact every unit is a stand-alone, not a part of some greater scheme.

You cant claim allies are cheesy when wraithwing/necron airforce and draigowing are widely considered superior lists to anything anyone else has cooked up. and guess what-they are pure codex lists.
each "cheesy" alliance is throwing in units that are ALREADY cheesy as hell in their own codex, anything you can "splice" to your army to make a cheesy list you might as well take as you main army and spam just that and get even more cheese.


I'd much rather face any alliance then the mono-codex spam lists that just throw masses of underpriced units at my face. at least I would actually have a 40k game on my hand and not a "level 999 space invaders"



As for HOW to use allies, and the allied "tax" units, I personally find that the best way to handle it is to only take allies that you actually WANT to "tax" units themselves, you want the HQ and troops, not only the FA/Elite/HS. otherwise its a point sink that will hurt your list.
If we return to my Tau+SM example, I WANT to have a MotF as he fits in as a "broadside commander", I WANT sniper scouts as scoring units that can hit from afar, the other things I want are just additional options that the things I wanted anyway unlocks for me, and fit in the same army concept just as good.

I agree with your last point. Troops in themselves are often actually quite effective. For example, I personally wouldn't mind two raiders with wychs and an archon running up to help out my Tau. For competetive play though, I can see the benefit of the FoC multipliers stated by the OP.

You played an IG parking lot in 5th didn't you?

Nope, hybrid list same as I play now.

Or a BA mech list,

No, don't like BA's since fluff has been crapped on since Angels of Death back in the 90's.

or a Purifier spam list

No, but my friend does and they are easy to beat with Guard actually...

or maybe a Razor/Long Fang spam list in 5th I would guess

No, since I have been a Dark Angels player since 2nd edition, i've never liked Space Wolves :p

Its not so easy to win anymore is it?

Hilarious how you think you have me all sussed out just from a few posts on an internet forum full of TFG's. lol You lost the game.

Invisible Jesus wrote:

You played an IG parking lot in 5th didn't you?

Nope, hybrid list same as I play now.

Or a BA mech list,

No, don't like BA's since fluff has been crapped on since Angels of Death back in the 90's.

or a Purifier spam list

No, but my friend does and they are easy to beat with Guard actually...

or maybe a Razor/Long Fang spam list in 5th I would guess

No, since I have been a Dark Angels player since 2nd edition, i've never liked Space Wolves :p

Its not so easy to win anymore is it?

Hilarious how you think you have me all sussed out just from a few posts on an internet forum full of TFG's. lol You lost the game.

Just pointing it out, you're the one who came into the thread throwing accusations of TFG at pretty much anyone who doesn't agree with you. You pretty much lost by default.

And, again, for the record: wanting to win is not being TFG. Nor is it WAAC.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
wanting to win is not being TFG. Nor is it WAAC.

I agree with this.

Playing to win is fun, no one likes to lose.

You can have a fun game in which you lose, but some wins are nice too.

 Kaldor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
dude this means everything you ever take in an army is making you TFG , unless your taking spawn class units . How is it possible to make an army with units that dont make it easier to win , do you load up your GK with psi lancers and stuff ?
ally are in official rules , they are as illega/WAAC/TFG as taking a Lemman Russ in an IG army or terminators in DA/GK.

Any army built purely to win with no thought given to theme or aesthetic fits that category.

There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line.

You us the terms 'abusive' and the 'line', these are your mental constructs, not the rest of gamers or GW itself. Using the allies system to pick good units is not abusive as it does not bend/break rules or use loopholes, it is just using the rules.

I personally ama theme/fluff player, but i have no problem playing against winning focused gamers as winning is not a priority for me.

Everybody wants to win, its a game lets be honest. The thing to look at here is that if you come in knowing that you have a great list and no one ever beats you your really missing out. If you never lose its time to put that list away for tournaments or unless someone wants to tryout a list against it. By sticking to the same style your going to either have everyone you play with build lists just to beat you or quit playing with you, and now where is the fun in that, neither of you will end up learning anything other than how to better kill this one guy :/.

Invisible Jesus wrote:
lol You lost the game.

I Lost The Game!!!

( Someone out there will no what I'm talking about.)

Pre P.S. I'm just going to act as though this argument is happening somewhere else.

In reference to th thoughts on allies being used to fill holes in an army or play to its strengths, sometimes you can do both.

Going off of my previous mention of DE, if I took a Tau list that focused heavily on Skimmers and battlesuits; if I took DE allies consisting of an archon, 1-2 units of wychs in raiders, then depending on how much of my allies I wanted, I could take some blaster-born in a venom, scourges jumping alongside my suits, and then either a void raven for some flyer power, or a ravaged for the extra Dark lances.

This list fits very neatly into my theme of a mobile flying army, and so is going to have plenty of synergy with my forces. On top of that, it actually covers a few holes that make this Tau list less competetive than its hybrid cousins.
Firstly, Dark Lances. This de list has an abundance of antitank weapons. Whilst Tau are still the guns of S10, by being mobile, I've had to sacrifice those precious Broadsides. Now I have more AT than I could dream of without having to hold back to defend some static units.
Secondly, the ever present weakness to cc. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think wychs and an archon are going to do a pretty reasonable job of chewing up enemy units in base to base.
Finally, because I now have so much AT, my battlesuits don't need to lug around those heavy twin MPs. No, I can fully devote them to blowing away meqs. Twin plasma with a targeting array, anyone?

Pro P.S. I haven't really sat down long to think about the actual competetive nature of this example. For that reason, if you decide that it seems a little Waac, then I've probably decided the same thing and will keep it locked away for competetive games. If not, then sadly I still won't be using it, because I don't own any DE!

Personally I've not used allies yet, I haven't because they don't either fit my armies fluff or theme.

Although I am now planning to take some Khorne Daemons to add to my World Eaters army, so I will be taking some Bloodletters, Flesh Hounds and possibly some converted Blood Crushers and probably a Herald to cover the HQ. I'm doing this because it's fluffy and a bit of fun for larger games.

I'm kind of in the same camp as Kaldor, as I've found that most people I've played who are using the allies matrix are not using it for fluff, narrative, theme or even fun. They are using it to create what can only be described as OP or 'roflstomp' armies in an attempt to table/win at all cost.

Don't get me wrong, if your army has a glaring weakness and you want to plug it with something, then thats fine in my books, it makes sense to do so and you are quite entitled to do so but I'd prefer it if there was at least some theme and thought behind rather than just 'Cause I want to win!'

As I explained to a friend a few weeks back, the Tau saw a glaring weakness, 'We can't do CC' so they went out and forged an alliance with Kroot. Problem solved.

It's not unreasonable for any other army to have the common sense to do this, I would just like it if the allies table made a bit more sense, as some of the combinations are really just there to be abused in some cases.

Just my 0.02 USD, but me and my friends I usually play with, all play for fun/theme etc, none of us are really that competitive compared to some others we know/play against, so I guess my opinion is a bit skewed.

Well, fluff wise, Tau are the only army WITH common sense!

I would not say that.

IG mostly has common sense, unless you are an officer (who gives out ranks there damnit?), they are fully aware that they are 99% going to die if combat rises, but they fight anyway, buying time for civilians to get out of trouble and delaying the enemy until the elite forces come to save the day.

They work on simplified and rational tactics, that require little training or equipment, as they HAVE little time to train and little funds for equipment.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
wanting to win is not being TFG. Nor is it WAAC.

I agree with this.

Playing to win is fun, no one likes to lose.

You can have a fun game in which you lose, but some wins are nice too.

A wise man once said: "There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line."

That is all you need to know.

Allies "can" be alright, but for anyone who is taking into account their opponent's fun...I would suggest this. Take a look at your allies, and think if they can be really justified in the standard lore. I wouldn't even put Necrons and BA in this list, as that is ridiculous and should be retcon'd....but as long as your allies SEEM like they could happen I'm down for it. I hate it though when someone runs allies that make no sense, as I play the game to imagine the narrative and a real scene in the 40k world unfolding. If the enemy team makes no sense, than it renders the game boring and lame from my perspective. All I say is when considering allies, take people with that perspective into consideration.

To those in the thread who have made that tired old "I can do it because it's in the rules" line, allow me to point out a couple of extreme examples from the past:

- In the RT Space Marine list there was no miminum amount for troop squads, and you could spend up to 1000 points on off table support no matter the points level being played. As a result you could theorectically build an "army" consisting of the bare minimum amount of character models and load up the rest of the points on upgraded vortex and/or virus missles. the end result was a game that ended on turn one. It would literally take you much longer to set up the game than play it.

-In 2nd Edition one could build and Eldar army that consisted of nothing but psychers, jet bikes, wraithguard, and warp spiders. (all troops that were notoriously hard to kill in that edition) No normal 40k army would stand a chance against that.

But most people did not resort to such game breaking hyjinx. There is such a thing as sportsmanship after all. Just because it's "legal" under the rules does not make it right. Far too many players loose sight of that simple fact. As for me, I actually don't enjoy playing a game were my opponent is not having any fun at all. Don't get me wrong. I like winning and I play to win. But there is a limit.

 Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:
Allies "can" be alright, but for anyone who is taking into account their opponent's fun...I would suggest this. Take a look at your allies, and think if they can be really justified in the standard lore. I wouldn't even put Necrons and BA in this list, as that is ridiculous and should be retcon'd....but as long as your allies SEEM like they could happen I'm down for it. I hate it though when someone runs allies that make no sense, as I play the game to imagine the narrative and a real scene in the 40k world unfolding. If the enemy team makes no sense, than it renders the game boring and lame from my perspective. All I say is when considering allies, take people with that perspective into consideration.

Like how i came so close to making a White Scars//Dark Eldar army.
Know i play Tau. I say the white scars and Tau of the K'tal jungle fighters where in battle when the orks came to the planet and they forged an uneasy alliance. But after feeirce fighting and a Tau commander taking a shoota for the Master of the forge(he always leads my force) they forged a fierce alliance. As long as the tau stay out of a certain region of space, they will not remain Aggresive towards them. to the point where the MOTF has taken to going to battle with firewarriors(the black sun filter and Beamer combo is helpful)
OR if im playing imperial armies, I'm always a traitor.

Its always a MotF that joins up with Tau isn't it?

My own (yet to be built, but already decided) allied force for the Tau is also a SM force led by a MotF, who got labeled as chaos heretic along with a few of his techmarines and some scouts from his chapter (unjustfully so, he was innocent), so they ran away with a ship they managed to salvage, and made a new "chapter", calling themselves "The Drifters", and operated outside of imperial command yet still targeted chaos and enemies of mankind. (they also began recruiting and developed a strict "technology only, no psykers, no arcane nonsense, pure science" code)
Eventually they encountered the Tau and took refuge in their territory as a staging ground for their anti-chaos operations (the tau didn't mind), the love of technology and distrust to psykers they share made it easy to get along and with time they began to set up trade for basic resources, and later on for spares and even weapons and ammo, eventually beginning to preform joint millitary action against various targets, the Drifters helping the tau defend against chaos, DE, orks and tyrnids while the Tau hiding them from the eyes of the imperium.

 Kaldor wrote:
No, the main reason for including allies should be your armies theme, or to use extra models in your collection, or to use a force that you've started collecting but haven't got enough points for a standalone army yet.

People who use allies to gain a tabletop advantage by safeguarding their armies weakness or exploiting a powerful combo are TFG, and should be avoided where possible.

dude, you play GK. you shouldn't go around calling people TFG all willy nilly.

Invisible Jesus wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
wanting to win is not being TFG. Nor is it WAAC.

I agree with this.

Playing to win is fun, no one likes to lose.

You can have a fun game in which you lose, but some wins are nice too.

A wise man once said: "There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line."

That is all you need to know.

Another wise man once said: "There's no such thing as a 'TFG list', it all depends on what context it's in."

As a side note, what list using allies is so brokenly overpowered that the guy playing it surely has to be TFG?

On a closing note, please, for the love of God, stop calling completely legal lists "abusive". Following all the rules, without even trying to bend some of them in one's favour, is hardly abusive, is it?

Invisible Jesus wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
dude this means everything you ever take in an army is making you TFG , unless your taking spawn class units . How is it possible to make an army with units that dont make it easier to win , do you load up your GK with psi lancers and stuff ?
ally are in official rules , they are as illega/WAAC/TFG as taking a Lemman Russ in an IG army or terminators in DA/GK.

Any army built purely to win with no thought given to theme or aesthetic fits that category.

There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line.

Oh boy you must hate tournament players. How DARE we try to actually win a game! .... Allies are not a TFG move they are simply a mechanic inserted by GW top let us play the game and start small armies that eventually turn into full armies. Unless your tyranids in which case buy more gaunts...Generally you should use allies to cover your armies weaknesses or to add punch to your list.

a long and silly summation of what I said

That was my point. You buy a commisar and squad of guardmen to add hydras to your list.... this eventually turns into a whole army sounds like everyone wins to me. If the cost bothers you then don't spend the money. There aren't GW employees forcing you to buy models you choose to.

All the special rules create unnecessary complications in the rules.

No your not. The TAU already have allies in the fluff they are called Kroot. To add to that there is fluff allowing for tau auxilliary allies so there you go.


text removed.
Reds8n

It'd be better for all concerned if we could stay calm and polite please folks. Really no need for insults or digs at other posters.

Thanks.

Invisible Jesus wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
dude this means everything you ever take in an army is making you TFG , unless your taking spawn class units . How is it possible to make an army with units that dont make it easier to win , do you load up your GK with psi lancers and stuff ?
ally are in official rules , they are as illega/WAAC/TFG as taking a Lemman Russ in an IG army or terminators in DA/GK.

Any army built purely to win with no thought given to theme or aesthetic fits that category.

There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line.

Oh boy you must hate tournament players. How DARE we try to actually win a game! .... Allies are not a TFG move they are simply a mechanic inserted by GW top let us play the game and start small armies that eventually turn into full armies. Unless your tyranids in which case buy more gaunts...Generally you should use allies to cover your armies weaknesses or to add punch to your list.

Oh dear God...You really need to take a reality check, because if you really believe that Allies "are simply a mechanic inserted by GW top let us play the game and start small armies that eventually turn into full armies" , you are clearly naive and deluded. The reason they have added Allies is to get people to buy more models and increase profits. It's as simple as that. Like a lot of the new rules in 6th edition, they are designed solely to make money: Flyers, Allies and recently the way they have FAQ'd a lot of special codex rules out of existence (see the Lumbering Behemen scratch) are all rule changes with the sole purpose of shifting the more expensive models and a wider variety of models.

"Generally, you should use allies to cover your armies weaknesses or to add punch to your list." Wow, do you work for GW? Sounds like it. That, or you are incredibly naive.
Why play - say for example - Imperial Guard or Tau if you don't like their weakness in CC? Go play something else, rather than attempting to patch them up with Allies. You are ruining the character of the army, and what's worse, if Allies becomes the norm it's not fair on the rest of us who aren't WAAC or TFG and who just want to play to our armies strengths, not patch it up with pure cheese.

Of course, Allies can give us cool ideas too like Traitor Guard, Tau Human Auxillaries, Daemons and Chaos Tzeentch armies, Inquistion forcs etc etc. But you just know this is going to be impossible to regulate or prove and it's going to spiral into TFG bs where it's all WAAC and no one can be remotely competitive without allies.

I wish people would wake up and see the truth under the 'cinematic narrative experience' (haha, yeah right), but most people won't. Bunch of fething TFG who should've been drowned at birth if you ask me....

I'd like you to answer a question for me then. Am I TFG? I have built a list from the IG codex, but brought in some allies using Coteaz and his henchmen from the Grey Knights codex to help cover up a known weakness in the IG codex. namely I brought in a squad to provide some close combat punch and staying power.

I'll give you more detail about my list though. It's an Adeptus Arbites list. That means it is entirely carapace armored troops and vehicles. I have three units of Veterans with shotguns and 3 grenade launchers. They are led by a Lord Commissar "Marshall". They have two units of SWAT esk troops designed to deploy behind enemy lines and neutralize heavy targets and storm fortified positions. They are two units of Storm Troopers with two meltaguns each. (They are fluff explained as using shotguns firing mini shaped charge shells as their hotshot lasguns, and provide my only AT and virtually all my ap 3 weaponry in my army. Then I am backed up by a Demolisher or two with sponson flamers.

The thing is, I want to bring two units of Shock Teams, who are the Arbites close combat riot suppression troops. I have two choices, from the IG dex or GKs. Bothcome in a chimera with turret flamer and dozer blades. I can take them as veterans, with shotguns, flamers, and a sergeant with power maul, or a henchmen squad with three warriors with flamers, 2 barebones 4 pt warriors as cyber mastiffs and 6-7 crusaders as Arbites with shock mauls and suppression shiels. I take the second because they provide me with great utility, getting a squad of inv 3+ saves and str 5 ap 4 power weapons.

I do get more wins than losses against my regular opponent, but that's more because he really never has a plan, or an idea as he builds his army, and doesn't even think about tactics while on the table. He plays BA and SW, yet doesn't build his armies based on fluff, theme, or even what models he likes, yet he doesn't seem to know how to think about the roles of each unit within an army.

Against most everybody I play, I am fighting an uphill battle. I normally have to use creative tactics and planning because for instance, my storm troopers never quite seem to accomplish their goal. And most of my theme holds me to a underpowered weapons.

The other armies I've fought against recently have been IG with 4 vendettas, Fortress fortification, colossus hidden by the fortress, and a metric gak ton of troopers and autocannons. JSJ/wraith Eldar army, Salamanders list with dual rerollable flamer landspeeders, super flamer land raider, lots of bikes with meltas and flamers. BA with mephiston, fast demolisher cannons and fnp galore.

My army is by far the least cheesy, yet it is the only one with allies taken to cover up one of my armies weaknesses so therefore I must be TFG, and all out to ruin my opponents enjoyment of the game due to my laughably overpowered army.

roadkizzle wrote:



I'd like you to answer a question for me then. Am I TFG? I have built a list from the IG codex, but brought in some allies using Coteaz and his henchmen from the Grey Knights codex to help cover up a known weakness in the IG codex. namely I brought in a squad to provide some close combat punch and staying power.

I'll give you more detail about my list though. It's an Adeptus Arbites list. That means it is entirely carapace armored troops and vehicles. I have three units of Veterans with shotguns and 3 grenade launchers. They are led by a Lord Commissar "Marshall". They have two units of SWAT esk troops designed to deploy behind enemy lines and neutralize heavy targets and storm fortified positions. They are two units of Storm Troopers with two meltaguns each. (They are fluff explained as using shotguns firing mini shaped charge shells as their hotshot lasguns, and provide my only AT and virtually all my ap 3 weaponry in my army. Then I am backed up by a Demolisher or two with sponson flamers.

The thing is, I want to bring two units of Shock Teams, who are the Arbites close combat riot suppression troops. I have two choices, from the IG dex or GKs. Bothcome in a chimera with turret flamer and dozer blades. I can take them as veterans, with shotguns, flamers, and a sergeant with power maul, or a henchmen squad with three warriors with flamers, 2 barebones 4 pt warriors as cyber mastiffs and 6-7 crusaders as Arbites with shock mauls and suppression shiels. I take the second because they provide me with great utility, getting a squad of inv 3+ saves and str 5 ap 4 power weapons.

I do get more wins than losses against my regular opponent, but that's more because he really never has a plan, or an idea as he builds his army, and doesn't even think about tactics while on the table. He plays BA and SW, yet doesn't build his armies based on fluff, theme, or even what models he likes, yet he doesn't seem to know how to think about the roles of each unit within an army.

Against most everybody I play, I am fighting an uphill battle. I normally have to use creative tactics and planning because for instance, my storm troopers never quite seem to accomplish their goal. And most of my theme holds me to a underpowered weapons.

The other armies I've fought against recently have been IG with 4 vendettas, Fortress fortification, colossus hidden by the fortress, and a metric gak ton of troopers and autocannons. JSJ/wraith Eldar army, Salamanders list with dual rerollable flamer landspeeders, super flamer land raider, lots of bikes with meltas and flamers. BA with mephiston, fast demolisher cannons and fnp galore.

My army is by far the least cheesy, yet it is the only one with allies taken to cover up one of my armies weaknesses so therefore I must be TFG, and all out to ruin my opponents enjoyment of the game due to my laughably overpowered army.

Yup sounds pretty bad... Your list actually sounds pretty cool IMO, but then again I dont see using allies to do what allies are intended to do as being TFG :/.

I play orks and wanted an allied detachment to help me out with my fear of tanks. Taking IG, Tau or Necrons were the obvious choices but I went with CSM because I felt they were the only ones who made sense. Does that make me TFG for taking an ally based on their gameplay use or do I avoid the title due to bowing to fluff? DID I JUST BLOW YOUR MINDS?

AndrewChristlieb wrote:

Yup sounds pretty bad... Your list actually sounds pretty cool IMO, but then again I dont see using allies to do what allies are intended to do as being TFG :/.

Amusingly, on the topic of the thread I am using a very nicely priced (probably underpriced HQ to change the FOC restrictions in order to completely avoid the "troop tax" because the only units I want from the list happen to be their troop choices.

roadkizzle wrote:

AndrewChristlieb wrote:

Yup sounds pretty bad... Your list actually sounds pretty cool IMO, but then again I dont see using allies to do what allies are intended to do as being TFG :/.

Amusingly, on the topic of the thread I am using a very nicely priced (probably underpriced HQ to change the FOC restrictions in order to completely avoid the "troop tax" because the only units I want from the list happen to be their troop choices.

I might be the only one wondering but how exactly are you doing this?

I take an IG army. Then decide to ally using the Grey Knights codex. As my mandatory HQ choice I use Inquisitor Coteaz because he allows me to use henchman squads as troops. Then I take 1-2 henchman squads now from Troops in chimeras as my shock teams.

Okay that breaks absolutely nothing at all. I use Belial he makes terminators troops.

Ok, thanks for all the replies guys, the thread has been a really interesting read so far.

I want to pull this back on topic a little more. The point of this thread was discussing ways of -HOW- you use allies not whether you -SHOULD- use them. Where I play, competitive is the name of the game. The guys in the group regularly place well in Throne of Skulls tournaments, and if you turn up with a fluff or casual list they will run over you. It'll be a poor game for them because their cheese lists will win easy, and it'll be a poor game for me because I’ll get trashed. It’s up to you to decide whether this is how you want to play warhammer or not, but some of us do want to, and we're happy playing this way, so leave it at that. Now, please keep those discussions regarding allies for another thread.

The other replies seem split. Some people are suggesting that a "force multiplier" type character, like Belial, is efficient if you only want the assault terminators in your list; whereas others are advocating taking the troops, as they are not going to be useless, even if sitting on an objective...

I sit with the Special character faction, I think. If I want to add terminators to a list, I think Belial and Deathwing are a better option, as these termies count as scoring. There’s no real reason to pay extra points for extra (troops) units you don't need/ want, when you can invest the extra points better in your primary detachment.

To the other side I ask: How do you then go "paying" the troop tax. Do you take a minimum sized troop unit and camp it on an objective, or do you invest more heavily into it; special and heavy weapons, upgrades, and make it a shootier/ more combat effective unit? Does it hurt to take points out your primary detachment to pump the effectiveness of the allied troops?

Try and bear in mind, that when we talk of allied detachments and "troop taxes" that we are taking allies for a specific heavy/ fast/ elite choice, and the HQ and troops are necessary to unlock this feature.

Many thanks, Hetelic

In the codexes I use the troup tax is relatively small, 75 points for 5 grey hunters is at least as good as I am getting elsewhere. Ork boys are a decent enough unit (and there are always grots if you feel like saving a few points). I occasionally take a captain on a bike to convert bikes to troups when allying in bikes to a wolves army.

Well seeing as you want to have coteaz, and crusader/death cults they should probably be in chimeras and surge out early to provide midfield control for you more static guard army. they are there looking to destroy CC threats I.E. use heavy support to open up the transports and use your previously deployed henchmen to mop up units that are a problem.then I would have a dreadknight with only an incinerator they hit hard and can tie up enemy units in CC.

 Trench-Raider wrote:


-In 2nd Edition one could build and Eldar army that consisted of nothing but psychers, jet bikes, wraithguard, and warp spiders. (all troops that were notoriously hard to kill in that edition) No normal 40k army would stand a chance against that.

But most people did not resort to such game breaking hyjinx. There is such a thing as sportsmanship after all. Just because it's "legal" under the rules does not make it right. Far too many players loose sight of that simple fact. As for me, I actually don't enjoy playing a game were my opponent is not having any fun at all. Don't get me wrong. I like winning and I play to win. But there is a limit.

So very true! Another person who knows what he is talking about.

And yeah, I knew a guy who played that horrible Eldar list. I still hate Eldar to this day because of that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

roadkizzle wrote:

Invisible Jesus wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
dude this means everything you ever take in an army is making you TFG , unless your taking spawn class units . How is it possible to make an army with units that dont make it easier to win , do you load up your GK with psi lancers and stuff ?
ally are in official rules , they are as illega/WAAC/TFG as taking a Lemman Russ in an IG army or terminators in DA/GK.

Any army built purely to win with no thought given to theme or aesthetic fits that category.

There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line.

Oh boy you must hate tournament players. How DARE we try to actually win a game! .... Allies are not a TFG move they are simply a mechanic inserted by GW top let us play the game and start small armies that eventually turn into full armies. Unless your tyranids in which case buy more gaunts...Generally you should use allies to cover your armies weaknesses or to add punch to your list.

Oh dear God...You really need to take a reality check, because if you really believe that Allies "are simply a mechanic inserted by GW top let us play the game and start small armies that eventually turn into full armies" , you are clearly naive and deluded. The reason they have added Allies is to get people to buy more models and increase profits. It's as simple as that. Like a lot of the new rules in 6th edition, they are designed solely to make money: Flyers, Allies and recently the way they have FAQ'd a lot of special codex rules out of existence (see the Lumbering Behemen scratch) are all rule changes with the sole purpose of shifting the more expensive models and a wider variety of models.

"Generally, you should use allies to cover your armies weaknesses or to add punch to your list." Wow, do you work for GW? Sounds like it. That, or you are incredibly naive.
Why play - say for example - Imperial Guard or Tau if you don't like their weakness in CC? Go play something else, rather than attempting to patch them up with Allies. You are ruining the character of the army, and what's worse, if Allies becomes the norm it's not fair on the rest of us who aren't WAAC or TFG and who just want to play to our armies strengths, not patch it up with pure cheese.

Of course, Allies can give us cool ideas too like Traitor Guard, Tau Human Auxillaries, Daemons and Chaos Tzeentch armies, Inquistion forcs etc etc. But you just know this is going to be impossible to regulate or prove and it's going to spiral into TFG bs where it's all WAAC and no one can be remotely competitive without allies.

I wish people would wake up and see the truth under the 'cinematic narrative experience' (haha, yeah right), but most people won't...

I'd like you to answer a question for me then. Am I TFG? I have built a list from the IG codex, but brought in some allies using Coteaz and his henchmen from the Grey Knights codex to help cover up a known weakness in the IG codex. namely I brought in a squad to provide some close combat punch and staying power.

This is FFG - Fairly Fan Girl. This is because a.) You shouldn't be playing Guard if you don't like the lack of close combat and b.) Probably more significantly, Imperial Guard get executed after fighting alongside GK, so the fluff doesn't work...That said, you've gone to an effort to re-work your allies fluff to make a unique inquisitor-type army, which sounds pretty cool. So you are saved from TFG for that. You clearly aren't abusing Allies to WAAC, so i'd happily play you.

Invisible Jesus wrote:
A wise man once said: "There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line."

That is all you need to know.

you use that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...

Who includes units that will help them lose a game?

Allies or not, when building a list, we ask ourselves "Will this make it easier for me to win?"

No one brings a Librarian, 5 scouts with sniper rifles, and 30 Death Company with dual TH's and Jump Packs to a game. There are two reasons:

1) This army will die really easily

2) This army costs about 3k points and has about a 1% chance of winning.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
As a side note, what list using allies is so brokenly overpowered that the guy playing it surely has to be TFG?

On a closing note, please, for the love of God, stop calling completely legal lists "abusive". Following all the rules, without even trying to bend some of them in one's favour, is hardly abusive, is it?

The underlined is 100% true.

Invisible Jesus wrote:
[
This is FFG - Fairly Fan Girl. This is because a.) You shouldn't be playing Guard if you don't like the lack of close combat and b.) Probably more significantly, Imperial Guard get executed after fighting alongside GK, so the fluff doesn't work...That said, you've gone to an effort to re-work your allies fluff to make a unique inquisitor-type army, which sounds pretty cool. So you are saved from TFG for that. You clearly aren't abusing Allies to WAAC, so i'd happily play you.

Yeah, I don't think you actually know what you're talking about. You can't just change your mind like that. If you concede that my list is fine to play with then you must concede that taking allies to help you win isn't what makes you TFG or WAAC. It isthe players attitude towards list building entirely. It has nothing to do with whether or not he chooses to include any allies. Some of the worst TFG lists are entirely mono codex. Just like there are innumerable lists with allies that are nothing but fun and games. TFG will make an annoying list regardless of if he is allowed to take allies.

But, my army is not an IG one. It just happens to be there are no Arbites rules although they are a legitimate army in the backstory of the game. I could very well build my entire army using the IG codex, and before 6th I did. But I choose to use allies because it makes my list a little better. Does it matter if within the background a guardsmen squad would crumble in combat. I don't think n Arbites Shock Team would, so I am not going against my armies characterizing weakness by taking agood close combat squad.

roadkizzle wrote:

Invisible Jesus wrote:
[
This is FFG - Fairly Fan Girl. This is because a.) You shouldn't be playing Guard if you don't like the lack of close combat and b.) Probably more significantly, Imperial Guard get executed after fighting alongside GK, so the fluff doesn't work...That said, you've gone to an effort to re-work your allies fluff to make a unique inquisitor-type army, which sounds pretty cool. So you are saved from TFG for that. You clearly aren't abusing Allies to WAAC, so i'd happily play you.

Yeah, I don't think you actually know what you're talking about. You can't just change your mind like that. If you concede that my list is fine to play with then you must concede that taking allies to help you win isn't what makes you TFG or WAAC. It isthe players attitude towards list building entirely. It has nothing to do with whether or not he chooses to include any allies. Some of the worst TFG lists are entirely mono codex. Just like there are innumerable lists with allies that are nothing but fun and games. TFG will make an annoying list regardless of if he is allowed to take allies.

But, my army is not an IG one. It just happens to be there are no Arbites rules although they are a legitimate army in the backstory of the game. I could very well build my entire army using the IG codex, and before 6th I did. But I choose to use allies because it makes my list a little better. Does it matter if within the background a guardsmen squad would crumble in combat. I don't think n Arbites Shock Team would, so I am not going against my armies characterizing weakness by taking agood close combat squad.

QFT... I played a horde guard army at NOVA once I eliminated the heavy support his troops started going down like flies. If he had crusader and deathcults he probably would have been able to halt my relentless assault through his army. The winner of the tournament played space wolves with imperial guard allies is that TFG or is that playing the game.

 captain collius wrote:

QFT... I played a horde guard army at NOVA once I eliminated the heavy support his troops started going down like flies. If he had crusader and deathcults he probably would have been able to halt my relentless assault through his army. The winner of the tournament played space wolves with imperial guard allies is that TFG or is that playing the game.

I think that player would be considered TFG on one condition. He is bringing that list in an environment thatstrives to play light fluffy games. Because the situation was a tournament though he would have beenwrong not to.

If i was going to take a unique to enable use of an unusual troop type i wouldnt waste that on taking the minimum. In fact i would probably try to max out on whatever it is that made me want said troop to begin with.

To be fair, it's easy to see both sides of the argument:

When someone abuses a certain rule or build with the sole intention to win, it usually makes for a tense and unenjoyable game, because the type of people that do that are usually WAAC people by nature and thus don't really care about anything else (with few exceptions).
People have cited examples of such behaviour throughout all editions of 40k: Fish of Fury (4th), the 2nd edition Eldar Psyker List, Draigowing and Chimera-spam in 5th and so forth.
Now regardless of the evidence people are claiming Allies do the same in 6th.

Basically, it boils down to what type of player you are: If you are a tournament player you don't really have any right to moan about Allies, as this type of high-end competitive play has always been WAAC. No one really enters tournaments for fluff or to have a laid back friendly game where you just hang out with a few beers. No. It's WAAC by it's very nature.

However, if you are the type who just plays those friendly games, (with or without a few beers!), or just plays games at your LFGC, of course it's really annoying if you come up against someone who is being WAAC and using cheese tactics or builds with the sole purpose of winning.

However, you can always choose to not play them if this is the case.

So on the one hand, does it really matter? You can refuse to play them if there is list is WAAC for whatever reason, be it Allies choices, Flyer Spam etc.
On the other hand, if you are playing a tournament you have already decided you are playing a WAAC game, so have no right to complain and can't refuse.

Either way, it doesn't seem to matter all that much. Is it cheesey or TFG? Maybe. Does that matter? Not really.

Invisible Jesus wrote:

This is FFG - Fairly Fan Girl. This is because a.) You shouldn't be playing Guard if you don't like the lack of close combat and b.) Probably more significantly, Imperial Guard get executed after fighting alongside GK, so the fluff doesn't work

Way to prove that you didn't read any of Roadkizzle's post. About 60% of it was describing his Arbites fluff, which - surprisingly enough - works perfectly well.
As a guard player, of course I don't like the lack of combat prowess. Am I going to take allies to provide some sort of edfence? Of course I am. If you want your opponent not too because you're too stubborn to take allies in order to protect yourself, then expect your opponents to walk all over you.

I really can't see any problem with allies. We all have the same options. If you want a light "fluffy" game, ask for one. Otherwise, bring your best or expect to lose.

Back OT, I bring Deathwing to cover my aforementioned Guard's lack of CC power, and to make my overall toughness a bit higher.Terminators also make great anti assault bubblewraps. Taking Belial makes them troops, so they can score too.

What a sad game where you have to avoid making efficient combinations if you want to be liked.

What I think:

- if someone brings a list that destroys yours and you had no chance from the start, that says little about a person but a lot about rules writers

- building a force as deadly as possible and viciously steamrolling people fits exactly the fluff of 40k

- if allies ruin armies character, that's GW who ruined it then and I see no reason to force players using name calling or social pressure to not use them and fix GWs game

- 40k is not an rpg, that's a ridiculous idea, RT is long gone and it wasn't exactly an rpg system either

- point costs, foc, objectives, and 100+ pages of rules, all this either serves for creating a competitive environment or just doesn't make sense and is a waste of time and paper

- there are friendly competitive games and playing for fun and to win are not exclusive, in fact this is a natural and healthy way to play a game containing objectives to win

- if someone plays for narrative/ fluff/ cinematic, you can write a book based on you being tabled, don't see the reason to be upset throw tfg at people etc

- I run 3 Carnifexes and field only the units I like look or mood wise, that's for anyone who would like to accuse me of being a tfg

- I recognise that my list being far worse than so called WAAC list is entirely GWs lame rules fault and have nothing against people bringing the latter, uphill battle is good and loosing is not a problem