Am I the only one that doesnt like the whole allies choice in 6th ed? I know some of you will use it to your advantage having something good from another codex(Just feels like a cheap and easy way out). But I rather just stick to one army and one army only. Find a way to counter your opponents useing one codex seems like the way to go....Anyway just my opinion. Do any others feel the same?

Purists don't like it, army collectors like it

Fluff-bunnies don't like it unless it has got supporting fluff, Powergamers like it if it makes their army more effective.

Everyone has their reasons for liking/disliking it.

It's hardly a cheap/easy way out, it's a way to add variation to your codex. For instance: Guard has one guy with a PA save. No good psykers. Add in Space Wolves; whole different story. Is it cheesier than pure guard? Not always; plenty of cheap tricks to be pulled from both choices. It's just more variation to the game.

I agree that most allies are just powergamers abusing an open-ended system. I mean, it's no different than people playing with forgeworld stuff in days of yore (well... and still nowadays).

There are a few legitimate uses, though, like if you have several fully painted armies and want to mix things up, or if you just started a new army, and wanted to use some of your new units in a game, even though you didn't have a big army yet.

I've yet to see anybody say that their primary army is a "X and Y" army, though.

In any case, you don't need to be a TFG to use allies, but if you're a TFG, you're probably using allies. It's what you'd expect from something abusable, allies included.

I've always liked big team games where there were mixed armies on each side. It always made it feel like a battle where the stakes were higher because each side was fighting a bigger threat.

I'm not sure about the allies thing because even though there are multiple aggressors and defenders, because you have to split up your points. Although the allies rules make their behavior in game a bit more believable fluff-wise.

Maybe that's just my bias though. I always like really big games. Small point games just don't feel important enough to fight.

I love allies, It lets me use Broadsides without playing all Tau

 TheCaptain wrote:

Fluff-bunnies

Fluff bunnies! Yay! *cuddles*

I like allies. It's a good way to offset some of the inherent imbalances in certain codices by allowing you to plug gaps to better round your force (unless you're playing tyranids of course). It's not a cheap way out because there's some careful planning when choosing who to take, what synergy is best and what is just redundancy.
Also, you know, incentive to buy more models.

Like the concepts of "start a small secondary army, still get to play it" and "properly portray those fluff combinations", but the execution of it was just awful. It's awful for game balance purposes with Imperial armies getting everything and Tyranids getting nothing, and it's awful for fluff purposes with utterly stupid things like Black Templars allied with xenos witches and Farsight Tau allied with orks. So no, you're not alone.

I like them for fluff and army collecting purposes. I can finally create stuff like the Damocles Crusade (Black Templars + Crimson Fists sharing heraldry), or Tau hiring Ork mercenary auxiliaries, and be able to field it.

What I dont like is some of the allies combinations/relationships dont particularly make sense. Like Space Marines - Tau as Battle Brothers. Allies of Convenience, sure, but not Battle Brothers.

"What are allies?" Said every Tyranid player ever :-)

For the most part I'm for it because I like the idea of being able to get a taste of a different army without having to commit as much money as I would have before.

That being said, I play Tyranids so I don't get any allies anyways. I don't really like playing the only race that gets zero allies but I understand it for fluff reasons. I don't think anyone has every said "Hey Commander, we should help out those Tyranids." Normally it's "Oh Holy Emperor, Tyranids! Kill it with fire! Ask those Necrons we've been fighting if they want in on this too."

 Ronin wrote:
I like them for fluff and army collecting purposes. I can finally create stuff like the Damocles Crusade (Black Templars + Crimson Fists sharing heraldry), or Tau hiring Ork mercenary auxiliaries, and be able to field it.

What I dont like is some of the allies combinations/relationships dont particularly make sense. Like Space Marines - Tau as Battle Brothers. Allies of Convenience, sure, but not Battle Brothers.

In fairness, I believe there will be some new fluff revealed (eventually) in the upcoming Tau codex, whenever that may come out, that justifies a battle brother relationship between Tau and Marines.

People complain about Tyranids not getting allies, but are there any realistic justifications for Tyranid allies in the first place? I can't come up with any, myself. To me, the allies matrix makes sense, the different pairings are pretty much spot-on.

Personally, I use allies to make up for a weakness in my codex. Space Wolves has few worthwhile strong, elite or fast attack units (Wolf Guard are expensive and Lone Wolves are above average at best, leaving only the powerhouse Thunderwolf Cavalry as an option). Blood Angels are full of them (all kinds of Dreadnoughts, Death Company, Sanguinary Guard...). That's why I run my Wolves and Angels together, because the Blood Angels covers a weak area in the Wolves codex. I like to see two codices mesh together to cover each other, rather than just using an ally to make a power list.

I still don't like some of the things allies brought with them. If one of my armies can't deal with something (often flyers) people tell me to buy another army as allies to deal with it. What? Why should I need two armies in order to have a fair game against one army? This is an expensive hobby enough as it is, getting an extra codex and units as a solution seems a bit silly.

But I guess WH40K has long been a game of money first like those collectible card games. If you can't spend the money for the new expansion you won't have the shiny new cards and you'll have a harder time winning.

Honestly, im split on allies. I dont like the possible abuses i can see powergamers attempting, but it does seem to add another fluffy, cinematic element to this new and very cinematic version of the game.

I'm not really a huge fan. I don't like how it's become the new way to fix a codex without having to actually release a new dex. I don't want to have to include marines in order to be able to deal with anything the enemy can hand me, not only because it's unfluffy (most of the time) but because if I wanted to be playing marines, I would be playing marines.

That being said, I don't begrudge people who want to include allies in their army, other than if they're just doing it to power game, and even then, in a tournament I wouldn't hold it against them.

I'm sort of indifferent to allies. It's odd to see things like Necrons with Orks, but thats just the way it is now...

At first I thought it would be awesome to get some guard or necron allies for my grey knights, but in all honesty, there is so much of a tax with allies that sticking to pure gk is much better.

 Locclo wrote:
People complain about Tyranids not getting allies, but are there any realistic justifications for Tyranid allies in the first place? I can't come up with any, myself.

Game balance. If you're going to trash the fluff and allow Black Templars to ally with xenos witches you might as well admit that allies aren't about fluff and give Tyranid players the same level of options that everyone else gets.

To me, the allies matrix makes sense, the different pairings are pretty much spot-on.

Did you even read the allies matrix?

 Locclo wrote:


Personally, I use allies to make up for a weakness in my codex. Space Wolves has few worthwhile strong, elite or fast attack units (Wolf Guard are expensive and Lone Wolves are above average at best, leaving only the powerhouse Thunderwolf Cavalry as an option). Blood Angels are full of them (all kinds of Dreadnoughts, Death Company, Sanguinary Guard...). That's why I run my Wolves and Angels together, because the Blood Angels covers a weak area in the Wolves codex. I like to see two codices mesh together to cover each other, rather than just using an ally to make a power list.

Other wise known as Codex:Twilight

In all seriousness though, if it is played as intended for making fluffy alliances it's all good, but yes it is far to open for abuse in the competitive setting.

I didn't use allies in 2nd edition or 3rd edition (in that the "forces of the imperium" in the 3rd ed rulebook were allies) and I still don't believe in using them.

You pick your army because of its strengths (and weaknesses). Taking allies is like playing Doom in god mode. Takes the challenge out of things by allowing you to plug those deficiencies with capable units from other armies.

Like a lot of things that GW does, I really like the concept of allies, but I don't like the execution of this concept. The allies matrix seems amazingly arbitrary and in some cases nonsensical (Dark Eldar allying with Chaos Daemons? WTF? The highly xenophobic Templars being better friends, so to speak, with the Eldar than with the Sisters? Huh?), which leads those of us who like a little consistency with their fluff to question just what on earth they were thinking when the various combinations were made.

As far as allies themselves, from a rules standpoint, I have no real issue. There are many examples of forces coming together for various reasons (Guard & Marines, Inquisition & other Imperial Armies, Eldar & Imperials, Marine & Marine, Chaos & Orks, Orks & Renegade Guard, Chaos & Renegade Guard, and so on), so allies make sense to me.

I assume the only allies 'nids might have is Necrons.
Is there any part of a Necron that a Tyranid could eat or chuck in the bio-pool?

But, I do like Allies, mostly.
If 40k 6th is more Cinematic than before, all those scenes in the books need to be able to happen. Fist-bumps and daring rescues, and all that.
It happens often enough in campaign missions in DoW, so why not on the tabletop?
Some alliances do make you wonder what they were thinking, though....

Someone made a really interesting suggestion in Proposed rules about making Space Marines and Chaos Space marines Battle Brothers, so you could make, post heresy renegades, that have post heresy equipment. I thought it was an interesting concept http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/487373.page

It puts proper daemons back into CSM armies. That's enough for me to hail it as a good thing.

I see it as a truly neutral change.

I mean, you don't have to use allies (I don't, but then again I don't play 40K anymore so that's a moot point) but looking at the tables in the FLGS very few people actually seem to use allies in friendly games anyway.

Admittedly, certain types of gamers are using it to make horrible ultra-competitive lists, but let's face it if they didn't have allies they would find some other way to do it.

You can get some good fluffy lists going with allies though, like a CSM army with some daemons in it (always has been and always will be fluffy), an IG army with support from SM (again very fluffy), also, you want a old-school inquisitorial army (when Inq had access to imperial guard shizzle without all that Coteaz henchman spam mess) then and IG army with a grey knights ally detachment is right up your alley.

I have several armies, some larger than others. For a pick up game i will use an army from one codex only. however, for other types of games like scenarios and so forth, it may be in character to have allies (rescuing an impeial colonel with space marines) and i'm also a magpie, so when i play with my regular oponents, i might include the latest 'shiny, must have' unit in my army.

I don't really consider allies to be a bad thing, although they can quite easily be abused, and i don't often see them in armies i face. but it does allow you to vary your standard army with new wierd and wonderful units on a game by game basis if you like, and for the power gamers, allow you to find a truly killer combo to sweep away your enemies.

For collectors alies are also a good way to start using new units from the new army book straight away by using them alongside your regular army, and then as your collection grows you can reverse the FOC and take your regular army as allies. this lets you play games without having to spend a whole load of money up front just to have a playable army. I can see that this is probably the justification for it as far as GW goes, you might not be able to afford a whole new army, but you can certainly afford allies and you may buy stuff you wouldn't have otherwise.

But, as a magpie, and a lover of good miniatures, i wouldn't let the absence of an allies matrix stop me from taking cool looking units i wanted to try, but it does mean i don't have to clear it with my opponent first

 Omfgorzzz wrote:
Am I the only one that doesnt like the whole allies choice in 6th ed? I know some of you will use it to your advantage having something good from another codex(Just feels like a cheap and easy way out). But I rather just stick to one army and one army only. Find a way to counter your opponents useing one codex seems like the way to go....Anyway just my opinion. Do any others feel the same?

I am with you brother, alliance system is by all fluff standards slowed... I have a hunch that Ward wrote this using TT characteristics and not looking at the game fluff itself.

Space Marines battle brothers with Tau but dislike Sisters of Battle ( xeno heresy )?
Black Templars hate Sisters of Battle ( not taking into account that there was never an incident between those two as far as I know and that Black Templars are basically Ecclisiarchy Marines who are close to worship Emperor as a God and they both hate psykers to that ) but will work with the Eldar? Who are xenos and psykers to that?
Dark Angels disliking Space Wolves? i am sorry but didn't these two chapters used to be best bros to the end because of that small Lion and Russ fight back at the time of Great Crusade that made them best buddies after that? They are like organizing games every time members of those chapters met to see who is the better champion at cc fight... of course nobody die in the end but what's important is that they keep the spirit of friendship between two legions by honoring Lion's and Russ's battle.
Chaos Daemons working together with Chaos Marines I get... but Tau??? Dark Eldar??? Imperial Guard???!!!
Chaos Space Marines work better with Tau than their daemonic allies... and they can work with Necrons.... I am sorry what happened to all that "we hate Warp"?
Dark Eldar and Eldar battle brothers? That's like Imperium of Man and Traitor Legions battle brothers.
Necrons can work with Grey Knights? And they are better allies with Chaos Space Marines than Chaos Daemons ( no matter that these two literally fought at Terra side by side... )
Grey Knights work with Necons better than with Blood Angels ( who are their battle brothers to that and one of the original Legions chapter )???


The level of fail in allies matrix is over 9000, it's maybe good for games but it has no logic at all when it comes to 40k lore...

I didn't mind it back in 2nd. It was a lot more fluffy. Space marines and the imperial guard fighting together made sense. Now space marines and orks? Don't like it. I know you can almost justify it by saying that maybe they were fighting each other before a tyranid hive fleet showed up or whatever, but I just don't think it looks right. Some work (ig and chaos, ie traitor guard) but I just think it's a little too free at the moment. It is open to abuse by power gamers, but my biggest gripe is just that many of the combinations simply don't look right on the table.

Just my opinion, I like allies, but I do think that the chart needs reigned in a bit.

And, if i remember correctly, back in 2nd, tyranids had the genestealer cult to ally with. Some of those old models were cool. (Although, I never really agreed tyranids should be aloud any allies)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And pretty much everything Alexander has said /\

 Omfgorzzz wrote:
Am I the only one that doesnt like the whole allies choice in 6th ed? I know some of you will use it to your advantage having something good from another codex(Just feels like a cheap and easy way out). But I rather just stick to one army and one army only. Find a way to counter your opponents useing one codex seems like the way to go....Anyway just my opinion. Do any others feel the same?

Well, I don't think 6th Edition forces you to use allies. You're free to play an army without allies.

Which is why 6th Edition is better than 5th Edition.

In 5th Edition, those who don't like allies were fine, but those who did get the short shrift.

In 6th Edition, both sides can play as they choose to: A better game for everyone!

rigeld2 wrote:
"What are allies?" Said every Tyranid player ever :-)

Slightly more agreeable food.

Anyway, back to the topic. My first reaction was to hate the idea with every fibre of my body.
I still dislike it, but I've grown used to it. It's just another way for GW to get more cash in its pocket. Personally I won't field any, but I won't think less of anyone who does, regardless of their reasons. (Yes, even TFG... but I think he sucks beforehand anyway so my opinion won't change due to his powergaming... again.)

I like it because it lets you try new possibilities, like a tech marine walking just behind a leman Russ executioner.

TechMarine1 wrote:
I like it because it lets you try new possibilities, like a tech marine walking just behind a leman Russ executioner.

Yup. Or an ork battlewagon?

TechMarine1 wrote:
I like it because it lets you try new possibilities, like a tech marine walking just behind a leman Russ executioner.

Not hugely different to a Techpriest Enginseer walking behind a Leman Russ, to be fair.

someone mentioned before that the idea behind allies was good but the execution could have been a whole lot better, something i agree with
That being said, I don't find allies very appealing but this may just be because I play nids

 Hive Fleet Lazarus wrote:
someone mentioned before that the idea behind allies was good but the execution could have been a whole lot better, something i agree with
That being said, I don't find allies very appealing but this may just be because I play nids

That's because all an Ally is to Tyranids is more food.

Well glad I'm not the only one that sees things this way. Anywway like a few of you I think the allies thing needed to be refined more. Like only being able to take "X" unit from other codex's if you already have "Y", "Z" unit in your list already. Or making allies only able to team up with other certain armies. ROUGH EXAMPLE: IG can only have SM chapter allies/ Chaos and orks/ Nids and Necrons I guess/ Tau/IG/ and Sm chaptors can either call on IG or certain other units from another chapter faction.

Used to be that you could only have allies up to 50% pts value of your primary force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That seemed fair.

I'm indifferent to allies. I'd like it a little more if Sisters of Battle could ally with the Black Templars- it's common in the fluff but the rules treat it as a Desperate Alliance. Interestingly, both special characters in the BT codex has a fluff piece about working alongside the Sisters of Battle (Helbrecht on the Vinculus Crusade, Grimaldus on Armageddon). Rumors of an 'Allies' supplement in the works for next year do have excited, though.

"Allies supplement"? Where did you see that? Think they're gonna change it much?

I like it, but have yet to seen them used in my circle of friends.

 alanmckenzie wrote:
"Allies supplement"? Where did you see that? Think they're gonna change it much?

Just a couple snippets from News and Rumors release schedule projections, AFAIK there's no concrete data on it other than the rumor that it is in the works for 2013. Check the first post in the Rumors Roundup thread in News and Rumors.

When I first heard about it I was excited. I fondly remember my old games of 3e where my buddy played Imperium and it, in a way, gave me back my Lost and the Damned. After seeing the chart I was very disappointed. The pairings don't match up to what I saw as correct to fluff. In the long run though it doesn't really matter to me since I only play friendly games and we're all pretty open about what we let each other do as long as we have advance notice.

I like it.

Honestly, even though it opens the door for really OP combos and such, you have to remember that it divides up the list into two armies, so you can only have a limit on certain things. You can't really take all the powerunits from both armies, unless you're playing a really high point game.

Also, it lets me play with armies I wouldn't normally be using because I'd rather expand my current army instead of trying to make a whole new one. I was interested in the Tau and Necrons, and they can both ally with Chaos, so I thought what the hell, might as well play some matches with them and see what works.

That's exactly how I see allies currently. It's a nice easy way for me to use certain models from other army ranges without being stuck with an army I don't like. Example: I really like the Thunderwolf Cav, but I'm not overly fond of the Wolves as a whole. I get to use those awesome models(imho) in my Blood Angels army without having to buy another expensive army that I don't even want in the first place. Yeah I still have to field a unit of Grey Hunters but one unit I'm not fond of is alot different than several.

My Mate plays nids and can understand where she might be upset. I get extra slots when i use allies, she can NEVER get extra slots. That sucks. That codex is so overcrowed in a few slots that it would have been nice of GW to just throw Nids a bone for old times sake. I doubt it would cause them to jump back to thier old Uber days but it would help make them a bit better against some of the higher end armies. Note: I am NOT saying that nids are awful. Overall I think 6th was kind to Nids(unless you played all genestealers, than it sucks.) but they could still use a slight advantage to level the playing field, I think GW missed on that opportunity.

I am, in fact, very fond of the Allies rules since they let me run an airborne Inquisition army I had theorized years ago in normal-sized games (allied Grey Knights and airborne Guard).

 htj wrote:
It puts proper daemons back into CSM armies. That's enough for me to hail it as a good thing.

Nope.avi

CSM has an item that allows deepstriking without scattering. Sounds awesome for deamons right? Wrong as pre 6th ed csm dex it was faqed that it only applies to units from it's own codex. This was done for both deamons and csm codex. Now in the 6th ed csm dex is still the same thing.

The most obvious codex synergy is taken away.

I guess I can see the point of having some other units and not having to start an all new army just to use them.

 illuknisaa wrote:

 htj wrote:
It puts proper daemons back into CSM armies. That's enough for me to hail it as a good thing.

Nope.avi

CSM has an item that allows deepstriking without scattering. Sounds awesome for deamons right? Wrong as pre 6th ed csm dex it was faqed that it only applies to units from it's own codex. This was done for both deamons and csm codex. Now in the 6th ed csm dex is still the same thing.

The most obvious codex synergy is taken away.

Er, what? I'm talking about the 'lesser daemons' rubbish from the old CSM dex now being supplanted with being able to take proper daemons from the CD dex.

Yeah, you can't aid DSing, but so what? Doesn't synergise as nicely, but they're still really good allies.

I've not used the Allie system myself - partly because i can't afford to by another army, codex etc.

A coupel of my friends are working on small allied forces (Slaanesh daemosn for an Emps Childrends army, DA allies for an IG army).

I've got nothing really against it myself but i can see it beign abused by powergamers pretty easily.

id rather they improved the codexes but as a tau player and for tau in general having allies makes sense to me and it dose mix things up a bit.

 htj wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:

 htj wrote:
It puts proper daemons back into CSM armies. That's enough for me to hail it as a good thing.

Nope.avi

CSM has an item that allows deepstriking without scattering. Sounds awesome for deamons right? Wrong as pre 6th ed csm dex it was faqed that it only applies to units from it's own codex. This was done for both deamons and csm codex. Now in the 6th ed csm dex is still the same thing.

The most obvious codex synergy is taken away.

Er, what? I'm talking about the 'lesser daemons' rubbish from the old CSM dex now being supplanted with being able to take proper daemons from the CD dex.

Yeah, you can't aid DSing, but so what? Doesn't synergise as nicely, but they're still really good allies.

I like the concept but dislike the bungles execution. As it is, it mostly accentuates the game imperfect imbalance (SW+IG trading best units is not kosher froma design point, nor is leaving Nids out in the dark without some form of compensation), while also kicking the fluff in the nads:

-Tau being the pet xenos of people who -despise- xenos.

-Eldar forgiving Dark Eldar for the whole 'squicking satan into existence and killing 99% of out civilization in the deal' thing.

-Black Tempars happily having Eldar, who are xenos AND witches, around.

It smells of a money-grubbing ploy. Nothing against it as long as it's decently executed, but as it is? Lazy.

Being a collector rather than a gamer now the allies rules hasn't actually made the slightest difference to me. However looking at it from a gaming perspective I like the idea of being able to take allies but generally the table and execution are pretty appalling. Power gamers everywhere simultaneously orgasmed when they saw them...

 Brother Captain Alexander wrote:
Space Marines battle brothers with Tau but dislike Sisters of Battle ( xeno heresy )?
Black Templars hate Sisters of Battle ( not taking into account that there was never an incident between those two as far as I know and that Black Templars are basically Ecclisiarchy Marines who are close to worship Emperor as a God and they both hate psykers to that ) but will work with the Eldar? Who are xenos and psykers to that?
Dark Angels disliking Space Wolves? i am sorry but didn't these two chapters used to be best bros to the end because of that small Lion and Russ fight back at the time of Great Crusade that made them best buddies after that? They are like organizing games every time members of those chapters met to see who is the better champion at cc fight... of course nobody die in the end but what's important is that they keep the spirit of friendship between two legions by honoring Lion's and Russ's battle.
Chaos Daemons working together with Chaos Marines I get... but Tau??? Dark Eldar??? Imperial Guard???!!!
Chaos Space Marines work better with Tau than their daemonic allies... and they can work with Necrons.... I am sorry what happened to all that "we hate Warp"?
Dark Eldar and Eldar battle brothers? That's like Imperium of Man and Traitor Legions battle brothers.
Necrons can work with Grey Knights? And they are better allies with Chaos Space Marines than Chaos Daemons ( no matter that these two literally fought at Terra side by side... )
Grey Knights work with Necons better than with Blood Angels ( who are their battle brothers to that and one of the original Legions chapter )???

In order:

The Tau are at peace with the Imperium, and significant portions of the Imperium trade with the Tau. The Ultramarines sit right next to the Tau, and both of them suffered heavily to the same Hive Fleet. The Space Marines get sent to deal with the Tyranids more than the Imperial Guard, and so logically they'd often assist and get assistance from the Tau in such matters.

You've got that backwards. The Sisters don't like "the men". They don't get along with any of the Space Marines, and the Black Templar are a different sect of their religion on top of that. Catholics and Protestants killed each other for a couple hundred years.

The Lion and the Wolf.

Tau have no warp signature, no psykers, no risk of damnation or possession. Hell, Farsight has a daemonic weapon. They don't have the same relationship with daemons and the humans do. The Imperial Guard codex can represent any human militaries, including renegade and traitor forces. As for Dark Eldar, I think they'd enjoy helping a Bloodthirster beat on a Keeper of Secrets, don't you?

First: define "better". CSM are Battle Brothers with Daemons, and Allies of Convenience with Tau. Both the Tau and Necrons are (virtually) immune to daemonic influence, which makes working with the Chaos Space Marines more of a partnership.

I actually think this is really cool. They are the last of their species, collectively a dwindling few million in the face of untold trillions. I don't care if you don't like your cousin, in the zombie apocalypse, you're going to take who you can get. And, by the way, the Dark Eldar didn't betray the species. In fact, the Dark Eldar are truer to the Eldar's former empire than their hill-billy cousins.

Again, define "better". Anyway, what two races do not have to worry about daemons? Tau and Necrons (and Tyranids). That's kind of useful to the Daemon Hunters, especially the more radical Inquisitors. Under the new (and I think better) Necron fluff, that kind of alliance can actually have terms of service.

For the record, can anyone point out a power gaming list that uses allies? I actually haven't seen any.

 Sephyr wrote:
I like the concept but dislike the bungles execution. As it is, it mostly accentuates the game imperfect imbalance (SW+IG trading best units is not kosher froma design point, nor is leaving Nids out in the dark without some form of compensation), while also kicking the fluff in the nads:

-Tau being the pet xenos of people who -despise- xenos.

-Eldar forgiving Dark Eldar for the whole 'squicking satan into existence and killing 99% of out civilization in the deal' thing.

-Black Tempars happily having Eldar, who are xenos AND witches, around.

It smells of a money-grubbing ploy. Nothing against it as long as it's decently executed, but as it is? Lazy.

1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree

The Allies system is actually a great leveler.


The codices that are top tier really don't benifit from it, and are actually hurt, as it waters down their army.

Mid Tier codices really reap no benifit.

Only low tier codices benifit from it as they can patch holes in their army.



So really, Allies only benifits fluff bunnies. Hardcore tournament players will not be running allies much at all.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Only low tier codices benifit from it as they can patch holes in their army..

Tyranids might want to have a word with you

Furthermore, I disagree. IG and SW make up for nasty stuff.

Nids got a huge buff in 6th, and GW hates you. I'm very sorry about the last part.

Nids are solid mid tier now.

One other point: Allies are a relatively decent patch to counteract 'Codex Creep' by permitting lower-powered armies to access units from higher-tier armies, increasing the variety of things you can do. Sure, a powergamer can take advantage of it easily, but it also gives utterly useless units a new lease on existence and generally broadens the spectrum of things you can do (marching Kroot forward in front of a footslogging GK army to absorb fire isn't a half-bad idea, you could build a joke all-snipers army with Eldar Rangers and Ratlings for seventy BS4 sniper rifles in a 1,500pt army, et cetera).

Sure, it may be a ploy to sell more models, but if they increase player freedom to build clever and interesting armies (whether competitive or not) along with it, I'm all for it.

I don't like it with regards to the fluff, but I do like the possibilities for counts as that come with it.

There's a huge missed opportunity with 'Nids - let them be Allies with IG, even if it's only Desperate allies. This could easily represent a Genestealer cult rising up to fight alongside the invading Tyranids (shortly before the Tyranids turn and nom them).

Sigvatr wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Only low tier codices benifit from it as they can patch holes in their army..

Tyranids might want to have a word with you

Furthermore, I disagree. IG and SW make up for nasty stuff.

Oh god I can vouch for this firsthand.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:There's a huge missed opportunity with 'Nids - let them be Allies with IG, even if it's only Desperate allies. This could easily represent a Genestealer cult rising up to fight alongside the invading Tyranids (shortly before the Tyranids turn and nom them).

What. No.

 TheCaptain wrote:

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:There's a huge missed opportunity with 'Nids - let them be Allies with IG, even if it's only Desperate allies. This could easily represent a Genestealer cult rising up to fight alongside the invading Tyranids (shortly before the Tyranids turn and nom them).

What. No.

No for fluff reasons or no because it'd be strong?

rigeld2 wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:There's a huge missed opportunity with 'Nids - let them be Allies with IG, even if it's only Desperate allies. This could easily represent a Genestealer cult rising up to fight alongside the invading Tyranids (shortly before the Tyranids turn and nom them).

What. No.

No for fluff reasons or no because it'd be strong?

It's pretty loose fluff wise. But more importantly, can you imagine how strong a Tyranid assault force would be with an IG gunline!

rigeld2 wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:There's a huge missed opportunity with 'Nids - let them be Allies with IG, even if it's only Desperate allies. This could easily represent a Genestealer cult rising up to fight alongside the invading Tyranids (shortly before the Tyranids turn and nom them).

What. No.

No for fluff reasons or no because it'd be strong?

Given the way they steamrolled over fluff regarding Eldar/Dark Eldar, Black Templar/Eldar and other heresies, I'm not sure anyone is really believing GW's literary purity.

If they really wanted to allow nids to have some allies, it'd be easy to finagle a fluff excuse. Mind control spores, a particularly powerful Hive mind synapse creature that enlaved some local forces, brain parasites.... after Necrons went from omnicidal mindless automata to eccentric dynast-kings from the past, everything is doable.

 Sephyr wrote:
-Eldar forgiving Dark Eldar for the whole 'squicking satan into existence and killing 99% of out civilization in the deal' thing.

The Eldar empire as a whole did that. After the fall, the some Eldar went their way in craftworlds and other Eldar retreated into the webway to keep the party going. Both are as much to blame, but in the growing darkness of the galaxy, they'd rather help each other than someone else. They're all still Eldar.

Eldercaveman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:There's a huge missed opportunity with 'Nids - let them be Allies with IG, even if it's only Desperate allies. This could easily represent a Genestealer cult rising up to fight alongside the invading Tyranids (shortly before the Tyranids turn and nom them).

What. No.

No for fluff reasons or no because it'd be strong?

It's pretty loose fluff wise. But more importantly, can you imagine how strong a Tyranid assault force would be with an IG gunline!

Objecting because it'd be strong is one thing... But objecting because of fluff is moronic.
Genestealer Cults are deep in 40k fluff.

Sephyr wrote:If they really wanted to allow nids to have some allies, it'd be easy to finagle a fluff excuse. Mind control spores, a particularly powerful Hive mind synapse creature that enlaved some local forces, brain parasites.... after Necrons went from omnicidal mindless automata to eccentric dynast-kings from the past, everything is doable.

There already are "mind control spores" in 40k, even. It's some plant from a Deathworld, one WD had rules for it. People that go nearby get "indoctrinated" and guard the area, attacking any trespasser until they die from not having eaten or drunk anything for days.

Iirc, there also was some sort of brain slug or worm that crawled into people's ears, but that one was only mentioned in passing...

But I still think the best solution would be the Genestealer excuse. The Index Xenos mentioned that they also infiltrate the local PDF, so all you need is to have an infiltrated regiment get tithed by the Munitorum. Would even make a cool scheme for the 'nids as this would enable the 'stealer cult to "spread" to another world using the Imperium's own ships.

"Many of these hybrids are able to exercise the human intelligence stolen from their genestock, learning quickly how to utilise conventional weaponry and infiltrating military and political institutions to further the aims of the sect. Worshipping their Patriarch as a god, they stop at nothing in their corruption of the dominant command structure. To this end, leaders of the cult direct their purestrain brood-kin to impregnate influential figures within the local authorities and planetary defence forces. Those implanted subsequently lose all free will, lying, murdering and blackmailing to further their power, the better to tear down organisations from within when their true masters descend from the stars.
When the cult has grown to significant size, the psychic beacon that emanates from the cult's Patriarch ensures that a hive fleet will finally descend upon the doomed world. As the cult comes into range of the Hive Queen's psychic control, it becomes utterly subservient to the Tyranid invasion, and the underground cult will explode in bloody and violent revolution."
- White Dwarf #266

DarkHound wrote:You've got that backwards. The Sisters don't like "the men". They don't get along with any of the Space Marines, and the Black Templar are a different sect of their religion on top of that. Catholics and Protestants killed each other for a couple hundred years.

He's got a point, even though I would never call the Black Templars "Ecclesiarchy Marines" - to my knowledge, they still do not acknowledge the Emperor as a god. Then again, neither do the other Marine Chapters, and with them the Sisters get along better (which is especially silly for the Space Wolves - a bunch of heretic mutant werewolves whose homeworld they just attempted to invade in response to the SW murdering a bunch of priests?).
As has been mentioned, there have been several instances of Black Templars and Sororitas working together just fine, and the BT have a battle banner honouring them. Furthermore, the fluff also states that whilst ideological differences exist, both the Space Marines as well as the Sisters of Battle respect each other's combat prowess, and find themselves fighting side by side against the Imperium's enemies again and again.

To me, the "Catholics vs Protestants" comparison only sounds like a half-hearted attempt at justifying GW's mess-up with the chart. Every time I have seen it thrown around on dakka, it has never been supported with anything from the existing material and just thrown out as a possible excuse.
Mind you, I like looking for excuses for when GW writes strange things, too. But there comes a point where I draw the line, and all that I've read about the SoB and the Templars so far conflicts with that chart, not to mention the silliness with the Space Wolves or some of the other combinations. Some pairings are cool and fluffy, but a number are just weird and SoB+BT / SoB+SW are two examples of that.

I do like the general idea of allies, though. It's a fun mechanic allowing for some cool mixed armies.

 illuknisaa wrote:

 htj wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:

 htj wrote:
It puts proper daemons back into CSM armies. That's enough for me to hail it as a good thing.

Nope.avi

CSM has an item that allows deepstriking without scattering. Sounds awesome for deamons right? Wrong as pre 6th ed csm dex it was faqed that it only applies to units from it's own codex. This was done for both deamons and csm codex. Now in the 6th ed csm dex is still the same thing.

The most obvious codex synergy is taken away.

Er, what? I'm talking about the 'lesser daemons' rubbish from the old CSM dex now being supplanted with being able to take proper daemons from the CD dex.

Yeah, you can't aid DSing, but so what? Doesn't synergise as nicely, but they're still really good allies.

Not perfect is not synonymous with worthless. Very good, complement each other well, and is more enjoyable in terms of flavour. Can't really make it any clearer than that, you're on your own from here on out.

 tuiman wrote:
At first I thought it would be awesome to get some guard or necron allies for my grey knights, but in all honesty, there is so much of a tax with allies that sticking to pure gk is much better.

well if you are going after another codex because it has better choices in certain spots, you are going to have to expect that that other codex' choices for HQ and troops slots are exactly uber choices. Lets see I like Vendettas and LRBTs but I have to take a CCS and Vet squad to get them. Is it a fair trade I would say so.

I personally would like the allies option IF I played Imperium!!!!

I hate the double force org 2000pt stuff personally.

The only reason I like it is because you get to paint other models and add them to your army and also I like it when allies actually make sense. Like maybe Ultramarines with Imperial Guard Allies of the Ultramar Defence Force, or Death Guard with Nurgle Daemon allies. When it's something like Tau allied with Chaos, or Eldar allied with Orks, I just shake my head.

^ Dawn of War II, Eldar manipulating Orks vs the SM and the IG.

I actually like the idea of allies. It allows me to have GKs and SoBs in one army.

Problems typically only arise from allied codices when one of the two codices is overpowered already. Or when one needs allies in order to survive (which is, again, a problem with certain codices being overpowered).

But in all honesty, yes, Tyranids should have been able to have allies. At the very least, they should have been desperate allies with the Necrons (after all, isn't the whole point of Desperate Allies that you're only allying with this guy temporarily to fight an even bigger threat, and will then start shooting each other afterwards?).

I liked big team games, in that each person takes one big army and then you go into teams.

I can see why people dislike it, I'm more of a fluff bunny so I don't mind it if people at least have a reasonable bit of fluff explaining it, failing that if they actually admit they are doing it to be a powergamer then I let it slide.

The people who argue that it is to balance out the weaknesses in their codex's etc annoy me as the bulk of them (not all) are power gamers in disguise, albeit a very poor disguise. Also this concept annoys me too, I've been playing since 3rd ed with a lot of old codex's, I still use the Black Templars one now as horribly dated as it is, and I've never needed to add unts from another army to get me a victory and I can't see me doing so anytime soon.

 TheCaptain wrote:
Purists don't like it.

Hmmm. Taking allies dates all the way back to 2nd edition. Not being able to take them was the change this old schooler remembers going through.

I'm not really a fan of the ally matrix.

I believe that everyone should be able to ally with one another regardless of the fluff.

Nids are forever alone.

sounddemon wrote:I believe that everyone should be able to ally with one another regardless of the fluff.

Basically this. It would be better than the current version where some combinations are as they are because of fluff, and some combinations are as they are in spite of fluff.

When it comes down to it, you can explain just about anything with a good-enough excuse, though. Needless to say, some combinations would work better than others - but in the end, the only ones who would have to judge and decide for or against it are the players partaking in a game. Maybe your excuse for army X + Y is so good that it just sounds cool. Or maybe your opponent simply doesn't care as long as it's a good game. And GW could still use limitations for official events and conventions / leagues.

I don't like the idea, in my experience allowing combining of two armies just tends to result in massive power-combinations. In a table-top game like WH40k it'll just take that much longer for it to be fixed, if it ever is.

OhNoItsNot wrote:
I don't like the idea, in my experience allowing combining of two armies just tends to result in massive power-combinations. In a table-top game like WH40k it'll just take that much longer for it to be fixed, if it ever is.

Players have been begging for allies since they took them away. Now we have them back with a vengeance. I agree that some power combinations are pretty fierce, but I'm a fan of it. If you're not first, you're last.

 Byte wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Purists don't like it.

Hmmm. Taking allies dates all the way back to 2nd edition. Not being able to take them was the change this old schooler remembers going through.

Army-purists, I suppose I should say.

 Omfgorzzz wrote:
Am I the only one that doesnt like the whole allies choice in 6th ed? I know some of you will use it to your advantage having something good from another codex(Just feels like a cheap and easy way out). But I rather just stick to one army and one army only. Find a way to counter your opponents useing one codex seems like the way to go....Anyway just my opinion. Do any others feel the same?

Nothing wrong with sticking with one codex. Also nothing wrong with using allies either. They are restricted enough that they aren't going to just completely fill in the gap in a given army. Your close combat only Blood angels army isn't going to be able to add 3 units of long fangs to give it the long range punch it is otherwise lacking. You just can't do that. 1 of any type of unit in an allied army is hardly going to be unbalancing.

In my group I have long played chaos armies that are a mix of units from codex chaos space marines, chaos daemons and the Eye of terror codex and started adding in some of the forge world chaos forces as well. All geared towards making totally varied and chaotic themed forces that are never quite the same from game to game. I have such a large collection of chaos minis and like to see them all get table play from time to time. In general our approach to allies is to build theme/story armies or to take advantage of varied collections of minis.

The only real issue I have with allies is how some forces get to ally with nearly every other force on the table, while others get little to no allied options. Yeah the options on the table do make "fluff" sense, but it doesn't seem fair to some, though. Tyranids don't play well with others, but allying with tyranids would also allow them to include a 3rd HQ, or a 4th elite, fast attack or heavy unit to match other armies that have allies options.

Generally I don't see the allies rules adding anything into the mix that my group hasn't already been doing for years. I guess it helps that my group is made up of older players with the maturity to not continually build broken WAAC armies since we are all friends and playing to have fun.

As with everything else YMMV, and this is no different than people complaining about people using forge world modesl to "gain and advantage", when only a certain type of people do that. I own forge world models because they are cool models. Since I own then I want to use them. You can ask any of my regular opponents and not one of them will claim or believe that the forge world models are overpowered in any way. Heck I have some forge world units I've used on the table that have NEVER done anything except die over and over and over again every time they are used. So it isn't the rule itself that is broken, but the people abusing them.

Skriker

I always figured they could have changed the allies table to show a bit more perspective.

For example, lets use Black Templars, this is not reflected by the current chart just a thought by me and probably stupid and easily dissected as such but hear me out.

Black Templars don't tend to get on well with anyone outside the Imperium. Which is understandable as they are well known for not exactly having good relations with Xenos and Heretic scum, so for example Black Templars would not work with Eldar. Yet Eldar providing it serves their cause or the need is great enough would fight alongside or at least use the Black Templars to achieve this end.

This would mean that as a Black Templar player I cannot have an Eldar allied detachment. However as an Eldar player I can have a Black Templar allied detachment although it may be an Ally of Convenience or maybe even Desperate Allies.

This would help break it up and could make the table more interesting or at least fix some of the ones that don't make sense. Although to put this in a table would probably be overly complex and it'd be a case of making a list for each army or adding it to each codex.

Probably convoluted and stupid but I like the idea of the perspective of the main force determining the allies, although it probably is unworkable.

Actually, that wouldn't be too hard to implement at all - just listing viable allies in the army's Codex. Only problem that occurs is the slow release schedule of the 'dexes. Many factions would go years and years without access to allies.

 htj wrote:
Actually, that wouldn't be too hard to implement at all - just listing viable allies in the army's Codex. Only problem that occurs is the slow release schedule of the 'dexes. Many factions would go years and years without access to allies.

Unless, of course, they have an Errata to bring the codex up to date.

If I may go on a tangent, I think the way of the future is digitally distributed rules. That lets the parent company patch out any issues on the fly, and leads to a more engaged community. I think concerns of piracy misplaced; I've pirated the rules for every army I don't play, and still the machine keeps turning. Owning those additional rules has led to purchases I wouldn't have otherwise made. Where before that was with Apocalypse and Cities of Death in mind, now it's for allied armies. Like that old phrase says, you give them the crack pipe for free.

I like the Allies system, but I don't get most of the allies matrix. The biggest gripe I have with it is that Nids can't ally (despite having fluff that says they "mind-control" other factions), but Necrons can. Necrons are supposedly just semi-sentient belligerent machines, out to eradicate all forms of life. (See Discworld Auditors )

Despite HATING the whole 'Nid thing, I'd love a 'Nid/IG force, just for all the awesome conversion opportunities. (Guardsmen with face-huggers or an extra pair of arms with claws on them, etc.)

 SgtSixkilla wrote:
Necrons are supposedly just semi-sentient belligerent machines, out to eradicate all forms of life.

No, they are not. Please read Codex Necrons.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 SgtSixkilla wrote:
Necrons are supposedly just semi-sentient belligerent machines, out to eradicate all forms of life.

No, they are not. Please read Codex Necrons.

No thanks. I think they're d*cks. But I have read a lot of BL novels that feature them. I guess they're outdated now. Still makes sense for 'nids to be able to ally with at least IG, Tau and Chaos. (Possibly also Elves and Dark Elves.)

 Locclo wrote:
People complain about Tyranids not getting allies, but are there any realistic justifications for Tyranid allies in the first place? I can't come up with any, myself.

I hope they reintroduce Genestealer Cults, which would be an awesome and easy way to get Allies for the bugs.

As a long time player, who remembers 2nd edition when 25% of every army could be allies, I'm glad they're back. The old Deamon- and Witch Hunter codexes allowed them for the Imperium, which was fun, but his way is probably better.

As far as the fluff goes, no matter how little sense it makes, you can always make SOME sense out of things, and isn't that enough?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 SgtSixkilla wrote:
Necrons are supposedly just semi-sentient belligerent machines, out to eradicate all forms of life.

No, they are not. Please read Codex Necrons.

Depends on whether you read the cool codex or the "Ward-just-took-a-sh....oe-on-this-fluff" that cool players ignore anyway.

Some combos make sense. Some dont. But there would be more bitching if the Imperium could all ally with each other and Xenos races couldnt all with anybody. So I think they made a compromise.

Nids should be proud they have nothing to do with this nonsense.

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Some combos make sense. Some dont. But there would be more bitching if the Imperium could all ally with each other and Xenos races couldnt all with anybody. So I think they made a compromise.

Nids should be proud they have nothing to do with this nonsense.

Preeeeeeeeeeetty sure Nids are happy about neither having allies nor AA

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Some combos make sense. Some dont. But there would be more bitching if the Imperium could all ally with each other and Xenos races couldnt all with anybody. So I think they made a compromise.

Nids should be proud they have nothing to do with this nonsense.

Preeeeeeeeeeetty sure Nids are happy about neither having allies nor AA

You do realize that 'nids can take harpies and flying tyrants? Both of which can tear the wings off of flyers when swooping.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
There's a huge missed opportunity with 'Nids - let them be Allies with IG, even if it's only Desperate allies. This could easily represent a Genestealer cult rising up to fight alongside the invading Tyranids (shortly before the Tyranids turn and nom them).

Yes, and then you would have tyranids using mech alongside T6 MC, and it won't make sense from a fluff standpoint because the cultists are not soldiers; they are mainly civilians with some PDF thrown in (sometimes).
How about no?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
There's a huge missed opportunity with 'Nids - let them be Allies with IG, even if it's only Desperate allies. This could easily represent a Genestealer cult rising up to fight alongside the invading Tyranids (shortly before the Tyranids turn and nom them).

Yes, and then you would have tyranids using mech alongside T6 MC, and it won't make sense from a fluff standpoint because the cultists are not soldiers; they are mainly civilians with some PDF thrown in (sometimes).
How about no?

I know a player a my FLGS who plays Nids comuplete with Doom of Malan'tai in a pod, carnifex in a pod, Harpie, and Trygon Prime. Who are you going to play against if you put that AND imperial guard in your army?

All the other alliances could, at least, happen during certain condition such as being in a war zone. Everyone knows that Tyranids just consume everything in their path, and will probably just shoot them (barring cultists, who are enslaved by the Patriach)

TechMarine1 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Some combos make sense. Some dont. But there would be more bitching if the Imperium could all ally with each other and Xenos races couldnt all with anybody. So I think they made a compromise.

Nids should be proud they have nothing to do with this nonsense.

Preeeeeeeeeeetty sure Nids are happy about neither having allies nor AA

You do realize that 'nids can take harpies and flying tyrants? Both of which can tear the wings off of flyers when swooping.

Harpies aren't really AA - they only have Blast weapons, which can't hit Flyers. They can Vector Strike them - but with an unmodified STR of 5 that's not very likely to do anything.

I for one am tired of people saying the allies matrix is unfluffy, simply because it *allows* you to be unfluffy.

I also think their capacity to be OP is reserved to a very few and very obvious cheese lists. In general I have never found myself thinking "damn i wish I could take so and so unit from this other codex", since 'dexes tend to be internally balanced. A guard player needs bodies, guns and tanks, not MEQs or grav-tanks (though how you can call something that's AV12 a tank, I don't know )

I mostly agree with testify. I think the fact that your allies have to stick to their own foc limits the opportunities for cheesy op lists. You may want some super fast attack units from another codex but do you really want to waste points on troops and hq that you don't?

I was talking about the 2nd ed allies system earlier on and that allowed you to spend your allied points on anything on wanted.

So Yeh, I do like most of what allies are about, but it's the unfluffiness that it allows that I don't really like. Having said that, I don't actually think really unfluffy situations will come up all that often. I think a lot of players enjoy the fluff of their armies and won't want to push it too far. And if it allows the occasional big multiplayer game, then that's cool too.

I like allies, i just hope most players will at least try to make so sort of effort at authenticity.... relatively speaking.

I general I agree with the OP. In terms of the basic game, allies should have been left well alone. It should have been put in the province of Forgeworld, expansions and the like. Great for pure hobby/fluff games where you and your friends team up into sides along allied lines for big games. Super stuff. However for "fair" casual gaming at the local club/store and tournaments it is unsuitable, mainly because it hands Imperial players a considerable advantage (and to a certain extent the financially better off players - although that is always a problem in this hobby). Tyrannid players have my sympathy.

As many others have stated/observed, the simple truth is that GW introduced it as a way to get players to buy more codices/miniatures. This is why Daemons (other than the DP) were removed from the new Chaos Codex. Want lesser and greater daemons? Well guess what, you are going to have buy the CD codex. This immediately hands the advantage to the CSM player who already owns CD and codex specific miniatures.

My own disapproval though doesn't begrudge players with allies. It's in the basic rules now, nothing I can do about it. However, I'll still happily power-game players who try to sneak in Forgeworld stuff into a FLGC game though.......the cheek of it, honestly.....

Yeah no, don't mention FW and OP, you're going to derail the thread.

rigeld2 wrote:

TechMarine1 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Some combos make sense. Some dont. But there would be more bitching if the Imperium could all ally with each other and Xenos races couldnt all with anybody. So I think they made a compromise.

Nids should be proud they have nothing to do with this nonsense.

Preeeeeeeeeeetty sure Nids are happy about neither having allies nor AA

You do realize that 'nids can take harpies and flying tyrants? Both of which can tear the wings off of flyers when swooping.

Harpies aren't really AA - they only have Blast weapons, which can't hit Flyers. They can Vector Strike them - but with an unmodified STR of 5 that's not very likely to do anything.

+2D6 for being a monstrous creature.

TechMarine1 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

TechMarine1 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Some combos make sense. Some dont. But there would be more bitching if the Imperium could all ally with each other and Xenos races couldnt all with anybody. So I think they made a compromise.

Nids should be proud they have nothing to do with this nonsense.

Preeeeeeeeeeetty sure Nids are happy about neither having allies nor AA

You do realize that 'nids can take harpies and flying tyrants? Both of which can tear the wings off of flyers when swooping.

Harpies aren't really AA - they only have Blast weapons, which can't hit Flyers. They can Vector Strike them - but with an unmodified STR of 5 that's not very likely to do anything.

+2D6 for being a monstrous creature.

That rule has been changed. MC no longer get armorbane; they now have a special rule called smash, which makes all of their attacks AP2, and they may choose to halve their attacks and double their strength...in the assault phase.

TechMarine1 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

TechMarine1 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Some combos make sense. Some dont. But there would be more bitching if the Imperium could all ally with each other and Xenos races couldnt all with anybody. So I think they made a compromise.

Nids should be proud they have nothing to do with this nonsense.

Preeeeeeeeeeetty sure Nids are happy about neither having allies nor AA

You do realize that 'nids can take harpies and flying tyrants? Both of which can tear the wings off of flyers when swooping.

Harpies aren't really AA - they only have Blast weapons, which can't hit Flyers. They can Vector Strike them - but with an unmodified STR of 5 that's not very likely to do anything.

+2D6 for being a monstrous creature.

MCs don't have Armorbane, Smash doesn't do that, and you can't Smash a Vector Strike.

Try again?

I think it is a sound idea, it makes sense and it allows you to collect loads of other figures, little chunks of armies here and there, which is good for you and good for GW.

However, I do have a number of issue with the way it has been done:

1. Obviously the way codeces were constructed was a bit of a balance, each one had strengths and weaknesses to provide a balanced game experience. So the way allies now work means that judiciously selected combinations are absolutely vicious. This is also a direct upshot of the combinations allowed. So Imperial players now have access to tonnes of new codeces and these used sensibly will be devastating. For example, IG with GK if done right should be virtually invincible. It gives the GK the long range and anti tank weaponry they lack and numbers, while the IG get the really tough grunts they don't have. Win-win. As a consequence it is not so positive for the other factions.

2. I just don't get many of the combinations, they are bizarre. With my nid hat on I can see why nids get none, but why then do nids not get some compensation (e.g. access to a double FOC from 1pt up)? They have got a kick in the nasties there and no payback. Some of the combinations allowed are just weird. Imperials are stated everywhere to hate xenos, the Inquisition will ruthlessly hunt down any Imperial citizens who traffick with aliens, yet the allies suggest the exact opposite. I can't see why they allow the Imperials any xenos allies, certainly not any at anything less than come the appocalypse. Necrons likewise. If nids get no allies why do necrons who profess to hate everything and want to kill it? Eldar and Dark Eldar. I know they have the explanation in the WD a while back but it just makes zero sense to me. Surely they are literally polar opposites, living completely antithetical lifestyles with practices that are utterly abhorrent to one another? You can imagine the Dark Eldar being fairly relaxed about Eldar but surely not the Eldar the other way round. In fact I would imagine they would regard them as their fiercest and worse enemy short of chaos, it was the Dark Eldar who destroyed their race and their future.

3. I don't see why you get such a generous choice of allies, so many of the special slots. It seems that they are privileged and you get better options with allies than your main detachment.

The final point of course is that it adds variety. There's no need to get annoyed about it, just ask anyone playing you not to use them if you are bothered. Your mates will surely indulge you!

One that most confuses me is Space Marines BATTLE BROTHER with Tau.

I AM NO BUNNY
I AM A BADGER

Isengard wrote:
I think it is a sound idea, it makes sense and it allows you to collect loads of other figures, little chunks of armies here and there, which is good for you and good for GW.

However, I do have a number of issue with the way it has been done:

1. Obviously the way codeces were constructed was a bit of a balance, each one had strengths and weaknesses to provide a balanced game experience. So the way allies now work means that judiciously selected combinations are absolutely vicious. This is also a direct upshot of the combinations allowed. So Imperial players now have access to tonnes of new codeces and these used sensibly will be devastating. For example, IG with GK if done right should be virtually invincible. It gives the GK the long range and anti tank weaponry they lack and numbers, while the IG get the really tough grunts they don't have. Win-win. As a consequence it is not so positive for the other factions.

2. I just don't get many of the combinations, they are bizarre. With my nid hat on I can see why nids get none, but why then do nids not get some compensation (e.g. access to a double FOC from 1pt up)? They have got a kick in the nasties there and no payback. Some of the combinations allowed are just weird. Imperials are stated everywhere to hate xenos, the Inquisition will ruthlessly hunt down any Imperial citizens who traffick with aliens, yet the allies suggest the exact opposite. I can't see why they allow the Imperials any xenos allies, certainly not any at anything less than come the appocalypse. Necrons likewise. If nids get no allies why do necrons who profess to hate everything and want to kill it? Eldar and Dark Eldar. I know they have the explanation in the WD a while back but it just makes zero sense to me. Surely they are literally polar opposites, living completely antithetical lifestyles with practices that are utterly abhorrent to one another? You can imagine the Dark Eldar being fairly relaxed about Eldar but surely not the Eldar the other way round. In fact I would imagine they would regard them as their fiercest and worse enemy short of chaos, it was the Dark Eldar who destroyed their race and their future.

3. I don't see why you get such a generous choice of allies, so many of the special slots. It seems that they are privileged and you get better options with allies than your main detachment.

The final point of course is that it adds variety. There's no need to get annoyed about it, just ask anyone playing you not to use them if you are bothered. Your mates will surely indulge you!

Imagine your worst enemy. Now imagine that he's the only other person on Earth, and there's a whole bunch of monkeys trying to kill both of you. The Eldar and Dark Eldar may hate each other, but they still like each other a heck of a lot more than they like anyone else.

I like the allies rules. TFGs could already abuse the army list creation system before, the ability to abuse rules for WAAC purposes is nothing new. I find that allies bring more variety to the game, and let me face off against a greater cross-section of units than I did before. They have also allowed me to justify a Sisters of Battle counts-as pet project, so that certainly doesn't hurt my opinion of them either.

I like it, it let me add a Harliestar into my Paladin army.

 phantommaster wrote:
I like it, it let me add a Harliestar into my Paladin army.

OH FUUUUUUUU-

 phantommaster wrote:
I like it, it let me add a Harliestar into my Paladin army.

Other then the Clown factor, why?

This doesn't strike me as competitive in any way.

Who says it has to be?

One of the benefits of the allies matrix is that you can put together stuff you like, even if it isn't very good.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 phantommaster wrote:
I like it, it let me add a Harliestar into my Paladin army.

Other then the Clown factor, why?

This doesn't strike me as competitive in any way.

It works to an extent, I struggle against vehicle heavy armies and a low model count but besides that it does very well.

 TheCaptain wrote:
Purists don't like it, army collectors like it

Fluff-bunnies don't like it unless it has got supporting fluff, Powergamers like it if it makes their army more effective.

Everyone has their reasons for liking/disliking it.

It's hardly a cheap/easy way out, it's a way to add variation to your codex. For instance: Guard has one guy with a PA save. No good psykers. Add in Space Wolves; whole different story. Is it cheesier than pure guard? Not always; plenty of cheap tricks to be pulled from both choices. It's just more variation to the game.

This is exactly how I see it and have experienced it with people at my LFGS.

I'm in the powergamer side of it because it makes my army more effective at what it does. But I also really like how much color schemes for my IG and GK work together. Looks real sick.

TechMarine1 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Some combos make sense. Some dont. But there would be more bitching if the Imperium could all ally with each other and Xenos races couldnt all with anybody. So I think they made a compromise.

Nids should be proud they have nothing to do with this nonsense.

Preeeeeeeeeeetty sure Nids are happy about neither having allies nor AA

You do realize that 'nids can take harpies and flying tyrants? Both of which can tear the wings off of flyers when swooping.

Harpies are completely useless against flyers and even Tyrants need 6s just to glance av12 with Vector. Tyranids definitely have no AA, and quad guns got FAQd away from us as well.

TechMarine1 wrote:
One that most confuses me is Space Marines BATTLE BROTHER with Tau.

Yeah how do aliens have a better relationship with space marines than some chapters have with each other? Yeah Space Wolves and Dark Angels have a rivalry due to the the fight between Guilliman and Russ, but that should still allow for a much closer relationship than with an alien menace outside of Imperial space that is encroaching on Imperial space.

Skriker

I think it represents the naivity of the Tau and willingness to trust others. They'll get buddy buddy with ANYONE, little whores...

The Space Marines don't like the Tau or anything, but they are simply using the Tau because its convienient.

reaper with no name wrote:

Isengard wrote:
I think it is a sound idea, it makes sense and it allows you to collect loads of other figures, little chunks of armies here and there, which is good for you and good for GW.

However, I do have a number of issue with the way it has been done:

1. Obviously the way codeces were constructed was a bit of a balance, each one had strengths and weaknesses to provide a balanced game experience. So the way allies now work means that judiciously selected combinations are absolutely vicious. This is also a direct upshot of the combinations allowed. So Imperial players now have access to tonnes of new codeces and these used sensibly will be devastating. For example, IG with GK if done right should be virtually invincible. It gives the GK the long range and anti tank weaponry they lack and numbers, while the IG get the really tough grunts they don't have. Win-win. As a consequence it is not so positive for the other factions.

2. I just don't get many of the combinations, they are bizarre. With my nid hat on I can see why nids get none, but why then do nids not get some compensation (e.g. access to a double FOC from 1pt up)? They have got a kick in the nasties there and no payback. Some of the combinations allowed are just weird. Imperials are stated everywhere to hate xenos, the Inquisition will ruthlessly hunt down any Imperial citizens who traffick with aliens, yet the allies suggest the exact opposite. I can't see why they allow the Imperials any xenos allies, certainly not any at anything less than come the appocalypse. Necrons likewise. If nids get no allies why do necrons who profess to hate everything and want to kill it? Eldar and Dark Eldar. I know they have the explanation in the WD a while back but it just makes zero sense to me. Surely they are literally polar opposites, living completely antithetical lifestyles with practices that are utterly abhorrent to one another? You can imagine the Dark Eldar being fairly relaxed about Eldar but surely not the Eldar the other way round. In fact I would imagine they would regard them as their fiercest and worse enemy short of chaos, it was the Dark Eldar who destroyed their race and their future.

3. I don't see why you get such a generous choice of allies, so many of the special slots. It seems that they are privileged and you get better options with allies than your main detachment.

The final point of course is that it adds variety. There's no need to get annoyed about it, just ask anyone playing you not to use them if you are bothered. Your mates will surely indulge you!

Imagine your worst enemy. Now imagine that he's the only other person on Earth, and there's a whole bunch of monkeys trying to kill both of you. The Eldar and Dark Eldar may hate each other, but they still like each other a heck of a lot more than they like anyone else.

I still don't buy it, the Dark Eldar literally damned the whole race, they destroyed the vast majority, wiped out their worlds, damned billions upon billions of Eldar to hell and meant that no Eldar can die ever again without damnation. There is literally nothing worse. The Eldar were the ones who fled this and set their face against it. Their entire society and their ancestors were wiped out and they have no future. I think if I was them I'd rather die than fight with the Dark Eldar. I'd think they would be far happier siding with Tau or even Orks, all of the Imperial factions, etc.

 Ailaros wrote:


I've yet to see anybody say that their primary army is a "X and Y" army, though.

i have seen some play eldar and marines as there primary army and it sucked play 3 wraith lords farseer 20 warriors eldar snipers with space marine snipers and vindacater and a bike squad with a librarian on a bike it really sucked to play against.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So does any one disagree with the fact that space wolves and ark angels can be allies of convince. i think they should be desperate allies. those two chapters hate each other. they will hardly ever fight together.

It's not my primary army by any definition, but one of my armies definitely is best described as Grey Knights and airborne Guard, since I was trying to bring back something that resembled the old Inquisition lists from 3e...

Isengard wrote:

reaper with no name wrote:

Isengard wrote:
I think it is a sound idea, it makes sense and it allows you to collect loads of other figures, little chunks of armies here and there, which is good for you and good for GW.

However, I do have a number of issue with the way it has been done:

1. Obviously the way codeces were constructed was a bit of a balance, each one had strengths and weaknesses to provide a balanced game experience. So the way allies now work means that judiciously selected combinations are absolutely vicious. This is also a direct upshot of the combinations allowed. So Imperial players now have access to tonnes of new codeces and these used sensibly will be devastating. For example, IG with GK if done right should be virtually invincible. It gives the GK the long range and anti tank weaponry they lack and numbers, while the IG get the really tough grunts they don't have. Win-win. As a consequence it is not so positive for the other factions.

2. I just don't get many of the combinations, they are bizarre. With my nid hat on I can see why nids get none, but why then do nids not get some compensation (e.g. access to a double FOC from 1pt up)? They have got a kick in the nasties there and no payback. Some of the combinations allowed are just weird. Imperials are stated everywhere to hate xenos, the Inquisition will ruthlessly hunt down any Imperial citizens who traffick with aliens, yet the allies suggest the exact opposite. I can't see why they allow the Imperials any xenos allies, certainly not any at anything less than come the appocalypse. Necrons likewise. If nids get no allies why do necrons who profess to hate everything and want to kill it? Eldar and Dark Eldar. I know they have the explanation in the WD a while back but it just makes zero sense to me. Surely they are literally polar opposites, living completely antithetical lifestyles with practices that are utterly abhorrent to one another? You can imagine the Dark Eldar being fairly relaxed about Eldar but surely not the Eldar the other way round. In fact I would imagine they would regard them as their fiercest and worse enemy short of chaos, it was the Dark Eldar who destroyed their race and their future.

3. I don't see why you get such a generous choice of allies, so many of the special slots. It seems that they are privileged and you get better options with allies than your main detachment.

The final point of course is that it adds variety. There's no need to get annoyed about it, just ask anyone playing you not to use them if you are bothered. Your mates will surely indulge you!

Imagine your worst enemy. Now imagine that he's the only other person on Earth, and there's a whole bunch of monkeys trying to kill both of you. The Eldar and Dark Eldar may hate each other, but they still like each other a heck of a lot more than they like anyone else.

I still don't buy it, the Dark Eldar literally damned the whole race, they destroyed the vast majority, wiped out their worlds, damned billions upon billions of Eldar to hell and meant that no Eldar can die ever again without damnation. There is literally nothing worse. The Eldar were the ones who fled this and set their face against it. Their entire society and their ancestors were wiped out and they have no future. I think if I was them I'd rather die than fight with the Dark Eldar. I'd think they would be far happier siding with Tau or even Orks, all of the Imperial factions, etc.

I think you're underestimating how much the Eldar consider themselves superior to all other races.

I argree with the original poster. I've had friends taking a chapter master and a tac squad to ally their necrons just so they can get an orbital bombbardment

reaper with no name wrote:
I think you're underestimating how much the Eldar consider themselves superior to all other races.

"Me against my brother. Me and my brother against our cousin. Me and my cousin against the stranger."

The Eldar and spiked Eldar might despise each other but they're not mortal enemies like marines and spiky marines are. They didn't destroy their empire by fighting each other, they just chose different methods to escape that destruction. Craftworlders attack their dark kin if the Farseers say it's necessary, Dark Eldar raid craftworlders when there's no more convenient target. They'll both abandon the fight and turn on a third party in an instant.