72167
Post by: Boniface
Maybe I'm too old-school... I dunno, but i feel like allies is the equivalent of cheating.
I play Tau (Yes, i've read/heard the rants about overpoweredness) but i feel that if i added, say, eldar i would just make an apparently harder army impossible to beat.
I feel so much so that i refuse to play anything other than pure tau despite how easy it would be to write it into the fluff.
anyone else feel like this?
55206
Post by: Von Chogg
I have to agree. Not because I'm afraid my army will become more nails, just because I don't like it. I collect my armies because I like the armies, and I'll use what's in their codex.
Von Chogg
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Von Chogg wrote:I have to agree. Not because I'm afraid my army will become more nails, just because I don't like it. I collect my armies because I like the armies, and I'll use what's in their codex.
Von Chogg
This sums up my feeling pretty well. I play my army because I like them. They may have flaws and issues (that could be solved with allies) but that's part of their charm. I'm going to field my own assault marines and/or devastators, not ally in BA or SW. I don't need an IG blob to camp my objective.
The ally rules, like anything that gives you flexibility, has the potential for abuse. But also for doing some really cool things. I choose not to use them myself, but don't begrudge others. But if you use them to exploit some loophole, or put together some unjustified fluff-abomination, I'll get a little grumpy.
9982
Post by: dementedwombat
I don't have any objection to them other than the fact that the allies matrix is a bit wonky at times. I don't use them, but that's mostly because I don't feel like buying a second codex and some models for an army I might never actually play.
To summarize, I think it's a pretty cool idea that probably didn't get executed as well as it could have.
64907
Post by: FreddieTau6
i've used allies since the start of 6th but only when i was wanting to start a new army, par example i took my main army at the time which was Blood Angels and allied in some Tau because i was wanting to start a tau force and utilised allies there to try out different units with my tau and continued to until my Tau force was big enough to stand on its own 2 Hoofs!
then like wise i used Eldar allies with my Tau when i decided i wanted to start and Eldar army and so the process repeated, now i have Fully fledged armies of space marines, tau and eldar and use no allies.
that for me was a perfect use of the system, and my 2 pennies on it
73285
Post by: Savagecoyote
A friend was telling me how to improve my Wolves for a Tourney He started with a Valkyrie, sanctioned psykers and stormtroopers , I pointed out that it was a Space Wolf army but he just didn't seem capable of understanding that i didn't want allies he just said "you won't win without allies"
18698
Post by: kronk
You should ally your space wolves with grey knights. For fluff reasons.
73553
Post by: 41_WarGaming
I agree.
It tends to close the loopholes that your army has and takes away some of the challenge of the game when you have them camping on the objective or what have you.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
I'm not a big fan of the allies matrix as it currently stands, some have way too many allies (Imperial Guard), some have alliances that never should have survived past the alpha ruleset (Necrons & Grey Knights) and I do feel, even though I probably wouldn't take allies if I could, a bit slighted that my army was singled out to not be able to take advantage of this new rule everyone else can, despite pairings that make perfect sense fluff-wise. I'd like a more thought out and complex allies matrix; removing broken alliances/ones that don't make sense, creating one-way alliances, where you can have one army as your primary and the other secondary but not the other way around, and enforcing a maximum percentage of points for your secondary detachment would all go a long way towards fixing allies.
Even so, I still like allies, I think it was a good idea to bring what people where already doing formally into the game and gives people good opportunities to try a new army before making a significant investment in it. So while some alliances are a bit on the overpowered side, I don't think allies are broken on the whole.
65757
Post by: PredaKhaine
Allies doesn't always feel like cheating. When I saw chaos in 2nd ed - the demons and csms were in one book and you could take any of it. I always liked armies comprising of a couple of characters, 2-3 squads of marines, a tank or two and a greater demon. By the time I'd managed to get a csm+demon army together it was no longer legal. The allies matrix gave me that back. I don't use allies for my other armies, but csm and demons looks so good on the tt.
47246
Post by: Yonan
Bad implementation, good idea. I like things that add more diversity to the game. Quicker codex updates, forgeworld, allies, all great.
72530
Post by: Arbiter_Shade
I agree some allies outright break the game. I know that people like to defend Tau, to a point I agree with them, but when my brother took his Tau and allied them with Eldar using a Spirit Seer, Wraithblades, and a Wraithknight, it took the one weakness Tau had and absolutely removed it. Now given I went into that game blind without knowing a thing about what he was playing, he was visiting from his home state and I hadn't seen him in months, but when I put down my double LRC and Stormraven BT army I just looked at the board and said, "Might as well pick up my army now." What do you know by turn two the last thing I had on the board was the Stormraven with all of it's payload gone, two LRC gone, and two squads inside the LRC's gone. So yeah, allies can break the game right in half.
Now on the other hand sometimes it makes a lot of sense. I love the fact that I can play my Daemons and CSM together again, it is one of my favorite armies. I like to play my own Tau with Ork Freebooter allies, but even playing that I feel like it is cheese. The allies system allows you to completely negate the weaknesses of an army and to me that is silly.
57646
Post by: Kain
I primarily play Tyranids, what are allies? You can eat those, right?
*Grumbles about lack of genestealer cults*
14392
Post by: nerdfest09
I think it is a bit like cheating, I like the challenge that collecting an army you find enjoyable with all it's weaknesses and bonuses part of the fun, but if you get a chance to just pick and choose units in a way to win every time then it really doesn't hold true to what the hobby is all about!
I don't play much and I never would use the allies rules simply as I don't like the feel it gives the game and I don't want to collect a piecemeal force just to win a game.
57646
Post by: Kain
Some allies make a lot of sense, Eldar and Tau (there's quite a bit of hinting that the Eldar at the very least created the Ethereal caste), Space Marines and Imperial Guard, and CSMs and Daemons.
Then there are alliances that make no sense like the Grey Knights being more okay with allying Necrons than some imperial factions.
And then we're left out in the cold because we don't get genestealer cults.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
I love allies and like most of the pairings because it makes a more unique game. And yes, I like patching up my armies that have glaring holes because GW refuses to fix them when given opportunities to do so (Space Wolves STILL lacking a flyer/AA).
Sisters of Battle also stand a lot to gain from a Vendetta in keeping with their in your face style. Having a defense line isn't fitting, to me.
And Grey Knights being whores with Xenos is nothing new. I wonder where they got their tesseract labyrinths from...? Also, new crons are a lot more diplomatic when it fits their needs.
And bringing a dual raider list from the oldest codex and getting smashed by sixth edition armies isn't a fault of allies... It's a combo of old rules and too many points in too few baskets.
Hoping for an allies supplement in the future to add smaller faction!
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
Units from army 1 + units from army 2 is not inherently overpowered or even good to tell you the truth. There are some combinations that are pretty scary or min/maxed and you'll see a lot of unfortunately, but as a rule, there's nothing wrong or overpowered about allies. And Tau aren't overpowered, they're just new and people don't know exactly how to deal with everything yet. Codex to codex is fairly balanced this edition, even if some internal balance is off.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Like everything in this game it is open to abuse.
You have people who use allies to 'fix' weaknesses in their armies and you also have people who just love to buy 500pnts of an army so they can play/paint it.
It also opens up countless possibilities in army-construction.
And I really can't stand it when people say it's not "fluffy".
They write the story, so if they write a story about Crons and BA working together: that's fluff.
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
The idea is cool, while the matrix could perhaps be tweaked a bit. And I'm not too happy about some combos I've seen - allies taken from one army's most powerful units adding to another army's most powerful units to really max out on something. But that's possible, and I can live with it.
What I actually don't like is being told to take allies to "fix" whatever weakness my army might have. I wanted to play army X, not take the minimum HQ + 2 Troops and then load up on army Y to do the hard lifting.
72530
Post by: Arbiter_Shade
TheKbob wrote:I love allies and like most of the pairings because it makes a more unique game. And yes, I like patching up my armies that have glaring holes because GW refuses to fix them when given opportunities to do so (Space Wolves STILL lacking a flyer/ AA).
Sisters of Battle also stand a lot to gain from a Vendetta in keeping with their in your face style. Having a defense line isn't fitting, to me.
And Grey Knights being whores with Xenos is nothing new. I wonder where they got their tesseract labyrinths from...? Also, new crons are a lot more diplomatic when it fits their needs.
And bringing a dual raider list from the oldest codex and getting smashed by sixth edition armies isn't a fault of allies... It's a combo of old rules and too many points in too few baskets.
Hoping for an allies supplement in the future to add smaller faction!
Fix glaring holes and plenty of opportunities? Plenty of codex lack AA/Flyers so that isn't really something that is an easy fix...unless you mean giving grossly over costed Flakk missiles to all MLs with an FAQ in which case that still wouldn't fix many of the codex that we have now. It feels weird to read that you want them to fix all the holes in your army and until they do you are going to use allies to patch those holes. Do you want all armies to be good at everything? Having weaknesses is what makes the game interesting, if all armies were good at everything than there would be no reason to play one army over another aside from aesthetics.
As I said, I had no idea what I was going against when I brought my dual LRC list but I have had plenty of success with that list against most 6th armies. Regardless of what army I decided to bring, whether it be my Nids, Chaos, Tau, or Eldar, unless I brought a list almost exactly like it in which case it would have ended up being extremely boring.
18698
Post by: kronk
I like it.
I like to paint and model, but why would I buy any Tau or Eldar if I'm only interested in about 500-750 points worth of stuff. My group plays 1500 to 2000 point games.
Now I can ally them in and justify my purchases. Brilliant model selling move, honestly.
1135
Post by: mondamoto
The Allies matrix allows for some weird combos but I plan on using some but only if the fluff works and also since I have multiple armies it will allow me to use a lot of my stuff together such as the Ultramarines and IG, or Grey Knights.
63064
Post by: BoomWolf
Allies as a concept is cool, but the preformace is lacking.
See, I dont use allies, I don't even use auxillaries with my tau, but I love facing thematic allied forces.
A guard force with a small group of marines backing it up, a chaos cult with demon support, these kind of stuff.
But when stuff like GK/necron show up, I just go "huuh? hoooow?"
That table is full of holes, things that make no sense, and general awkwardness.
30830
Post by: Purple Saturday
Arbiter_Shade wrote: Do you want all armies to be good at everything? Having weaknesses is what makes the game interesting, if all armies were good at everything than there would be no reason to play one army over another aside from aesthetics.
I think a lot of gamers wish their chosen army was unbeatable and every unit was an exemplar of battlefield perfection. I've always believed that codex creep has as much to do with placating gamer egos as it does with promoting new armies and units. Collectors get emotionally invested in their collections; regarding 40k, they want their army to be the best. Fluff gets wrapped into this to create a horrible feedback loop.
I think allies are cool. As many have stated, CSM and Demons should never have been separated. I like that IG can ally with pretty much anyone, since they can represent so many things. I also agree, it should have been better thought out, limiting unit selection and point allotment. But, on the whole, it's a positive move for a company that makes lots of mistakes.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
The only thing allies cheat is my wallet.
I now own a whole bunch of things I would have never bought just so I can put them on the table.
20079
Post by: Gorechild
I'm torn. I adore the fact that the allies rules allow you to reunite chaos space marines and daemons, or chaos and IG for a more comprehensive latd army than just using cultists. Letting you take vast platoons of guardsmen supported by a small elite space marine force is another fluffy and awesome opportunity that allies make possible.
In tournaments I think it's the same. You expect people to be as competitive as possible, so you can't complain about people covering their weaknesses
I also see how taking a joint SM and Eldar armies against chaos (ect) can sometimes make sense in campaigns. But using the rules like that really bug me when they're used over and over in casual or pickup games.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Spetulhu wrote:What I actually don't like is being told to take allies to "fix" whatever weakness my army might have. I wanted to play army X, not take the minimum HQ + 2 Troops and then load up on army Y to do the hard lifting.
On the other hand you cannot expect every army to be good in everything.
I think supplements are a good way of dealing with that.
51606
Post by: TheCrazyCryptek
Yonan wrote:Bad implementation, good idea. I like things that add more diversity to the game. Quicker codex updates, forgeworld, allies, all great.
That's all well and good for a non-competitive setting, but when you get to where people are using allies to fill their armies weak spots, you have people playing armies with no weaknesses.
As far as I am concerned, allies allows players to take unit choices that provide their army with things they where never meant to have, and in most case should not have. In other words, every army has to have a weakness and allies takes away from that.
Sadly, I know why Games Workshop came out with the allies system. It has nothing to do with a balanced game. Its just about selling more models, and competitive players suffer as a result.
58668
Post by: edbradders
I used an allied detachment of daemons for my CSM until my daemon army became big enough to play solo. Now I don't use allies and probably won't do again.
43972
Post by: GreyHamster
Allies is an obvious fluffy funtime tool that naturally extends itself well to competitive listbuilding. However, I like to turn that back on itself. Build the competitive list, then ask yourself, why does that exist? I've always held that if you can't make a list fluffy, you aren't trying hard enough.
I've been bringing Tau fire support to supplement my Traitor Legion band. With in-your-face elements like Plague Marines and Heldrakes, the Tau are much more free to deploy aggressively for firing positions. So the challenge to me was writing the fluff for that. The Legionaries lied to the Tau with the truth. They are absolutely interested in tearing down the old stultifying Imperium so that humanity can reach its true potential. The death of the False Emperor is absolutely for the Greater Good. The cadre, bereft of their ethereals and naive to the truth of Chaos, said, sure, that seems legitimate. It never occurs to them that for the traitors, turning the entire galaxy to Chaos is the greatest good.
69239
Post by: Thokt
Allies are incredibly lame IMO. The armies are what they are - allies really breaks up the spirit of the game for me. I don't think allies are particularly fluffy either - just because something needs fluff to be explained does not make it fluffier than anything else.
Beyond that, I think the tables start to look pretty silly when one game has four mix n match forces on them.
57646
Post by: Kain
Thokt wrote:Allies are incredibly lame IMO. The armies are what they are - allies really breaks up the spirit of the game for me. I don't think allies are particularly fluffy either - just because something needs fluff to be explained does not make it fluffier than anything else.
Beyond that, I think the tables start to look pretty silly when one game has four mix n match forces on them.
So Chaos Daemons and Chaos Space Marines must part ways?
What about the Guard and Space Marines/SoBs?
Or the Tau and Eldar (who do have many reasons to be together)?
What about Ork mercenaries?
50862
Post by: Pony_law
Allies aren't cheating as they are in the rule set. With that said I'm not a fan. IMO this game has always been about pitting codex against codex, allies just blur everything. I use allies in my CSM/CD builds but I would gladly give that up to go back to faction versus faction.
57646
Post by: Kain
Honestly any complaint about allies would go if I could have Imperial Guard, Tau, Ork, and Eldar allies to represent genestealer cults.
55015
Post by: The Shadow
The OP has summed this issue up very well, imo. "Cheating" is a good way of putting it.
Part of the learning curve of WH40k, in my opinion, is getting to master your army, whatever army that may be. The way you'll do this is by learning to make the most of its strengths and making sure its weaknesses aren't exploited. For example, with my Orks, the main weakness I've found is lack of ranged Anti-Armour and anti-MEQ. I've learned to deal with this through many and hard fought battles (often ending in bitter defeat) and as a result I've maintained an impressive win/loss ratio with my Orks in recent months.
I could have, however, stuck in some Tau/Chaos allies to patch up this weaknesses but, as the OP puts it so well, I feel like it's cheating...
72490
Post by: gossipmeng
I don't really mind allies - they are a great tool for fluffy players to be creative with legal lists. Of course some are trying to push limits with OP builds... but really those people are a minority.
Although I haven't done it, I like the option of being able to add some daemons to my deathguard. I also used the rules as an excuse to purchase some DKoK allies for my GKs.
I could live without them though.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Not "cheating" as this would mean breaking the rules, but yeah, as everyone expected, allies is mostly used to cheese your army up.
67872
Post by: ALEXisAWESOME
I find it quite annoying when people imply I am a cheat or braking the fluff when I use allies. Allies where a great idea, not saying I agree with all pairings fluff wise, and some or quite powerful, but most of the power lists are made from lists that where powerful anyway. Grey Crons? Knights or Crons can also make obscenely powerful lists, I'd rather a wraithwing then paying the Cortez tax for a dreadknight. Its a different build sure, but its not beyond the ball park. I play Deldar because for ages I wanted to start eldar, but never bothered. 6th ed came out and first thing I do is buy rangers and a farseer.
Now half the time I bring out my Deldar out people say 'How can DE and CWE work together, they hate each other!'. For some reason loads of people think its like chaos and the imperium, which is just wrong. Then a further third call me OP for running a Harlestar with a 2++ archon up front. Usually with fortune.
I think its a great idea, ok system, but needs ironing out. For an example something I've found to combat shadowseers average leadership or to make sure fortune goes of is to put grisly trophies on venoms, 'cause CWE reallyt get off on that stuff.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
Yes, I feel like allies are cheating. Back in my day everyone was too hatefully bigoted to work with anyone and that's the way we liked it.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
I like the potential concept behind allies, but the execution has been awful. First, they're usually taken to shore up a weakness, not create a more interesting force, or to abuse something in a way it wasn't intended.
Second, the allies matrix is weird and contradictory, with very little rhyme or reason. Some allies were bent so as to provide fluff options for things like Traitor IG, but other factions remained rigidly adherent, like Tyranids who can't ally with anyone, and then we get absolute garbage like Space Marines and Tau being Battle Brothers.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Yep. Interesting concept that can be used for fluff armies but most often gets used to bring IG / Necrons / GK / Tau in.
51606
Post by: TheCrazyCryptek
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes, I feel like allies are cheating. Back in my day everyone was too hatefully bigoted to work with anyone and that's the way we liked it.
QFT. Seriously man, what happened to the good ole days when you might ally with someone then blast them to atoms once they served their purpose?
46877
Post by: Mythal
I like allies as they allow me to build fluffy, narrative lists. Including a contingent of PDF with my Sisters when defending a Shrine World from Orkish invasion makes sense. Ultramarines leading the charge supported by Imperial Guard artillery makes sense. Chaos Daemons and Traitor Legions fighting the servants of the Corpse-God makes sense.
But, then, I build lists to be fluffy. If I were a WAAC player, I'd not collect SoB. I'd collect an army with a more universally useful toolset, like Tau.
28259
Post by: Ugly Green Trog
It's the allies matrix I have a problem with. It's silly and GW haven't even bothered to hide the BY MOARE MODELZ behind a sensible allies grid.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
I don't mind the concept of allies, starting mostly in 2nd edition I grew up with it. It was always wide open to abuse though.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
1) List-building in 40K is always open to "abuse", adding allies doesn't worsen the problem much, if at all.
2) Allies are true old-school 40K. I grew up with a 40K were allies were the norm.
3) Allies (especially everyone-can-ally-with-everyone-apocalypse-allies) mitigate the heavy role of lists (and imbalanced Codexes) by giving every player potential access to every tool, making 40K - probably for the first time in history - a game somewhat competitive.
4) 16 Codex books without allies gives you 256 possible match-ups to play the game. 16 Codex books with up to (on average) 3 allies-option per Codex already give you already well over 4,000 possible match-ups to play the game. 16 Codex books with all-out Apocalypse everyone-can-be-allies-with-everyone gives you well over 65,000 possible match-ups to play the game. The sheer amount of diversity added to the game with allies (or taken away without allies) is mind-blowing.
5) Nobody is forcing anyone to take allies. If you prefer 40K without allies, don't take allies. It's an option that is there for people that like it, and an option you don't have to use if you don't. Everyone wins.
65162
Post by: TheDraconicLord
I like allies because it allows you to buy that shiny new model you wanted, but there was no reason to since it isn't part of your main army.
*looks at his Riptide*
57646
Post by: Kain
You know, this thread can help you tell who started in 5th edition and who started either earlier or in 6th edition.
7403
Post by: Accipiter
Does any one play doubles tournaments/games?
I remember a couple my friends went to during 5e.
I also vaguely remember 3e (local/FLGS) tournaments had possible allied detachments of 500pts on top of your army's 1000 pt.
Allies is not something I do, but I don't see a big issue with it as concepts go.
Pity about the matrix. Perhaps some of the independent tournament organizers will dump the matrix restrictions.
57646
Post by: Kain
Accipiter wrote:Does any one play doubles tournaments/games?
I remember a couple my friends went to during 5e.
I also vaguely remember 3e (local/ FLGS) tournaments had possible allied detachments of 500pts on top of your army's 1000 pt.
Allies is not something I do, but I don't see a big issue with it as concepts go.
Pity about the matrix. Perhaps some of the independent tournament organizers will dump the matrix restrictions.
I have played a few triples game with allies.
One time one side was all nids...all of which used my models and two friends of mine running around with them.
One of them broke a Carnifex's arm.
I was most displeased.
59721
Post by: Evileyes
IF allies diddn't cost points, they would be cheating.
Since you pay points for them, no, it's not cheating at all. Youy may fix issues with one army, at the cost of making the first army smaller.
48009
Post by: XT-1984
I like the allies system. Because now Chaos can be played almost like it could be in 2nd edition.
CSM, Heretics and Daemons all in one army.
72167
Post by: Boniface
BTW I know that allies isn't a new thing, but if they're going to go back to those days please can we go back to the rules in the codex i.e. Space marines may take allies from the following codexes: imperial guard, sisters of battle etc.
I think that would have been better personally.
Weirdly i dont feel like all allies are wrong, chaos and daemons should be have been together all along, and space marines should be nothing more than an elite option in an imperial guard codex or in a forces of the imperium multi-dex along with everything else. (Too many marines)
But hey, that's not how it works now so i'll just have to destroy all allied forces in the name of the 'greater good'.
20392
Post by: Farseer Faenyin
I love the IDEA of Allies. IG working with Space Marine support is awesome to be able to field on the tabletop for that great feel of an important battle.
Unfortunately, like most things 40k, a lot of people take that fluff perspective and throw it out the window for "what crazy powerful spam or combo can I come up with now that I have Allies".
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Seems alotta people started in late 4th/5th, considering allies used to be the norm for some.
If you remove allies, I want my 3.5 dex back.
Until you do, I'm keeping my daemons with my CSM, as they properly should be.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Farseer Faenyin wrote:I love the IDEA of Allies. IG working with Space Marine support is awesome to be able to field on the tabletop for that great feel of an important battle.
Well, I love the IDEA of outlandish combinations.
There's no creative effort involved in running Space Marines + IG or Chaos Marines + Daemons.
I like to see people go the extra mile to make the unexpected options work, both in the game and in the background.
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
I like allies, brings some diversity and added challenges to a field. also lets you fix and balance out a list. say you want to play dark angels but your flyers suck and you have some imperial guard you can shore up your weakness with a Valkyrie, and add in a few sniper or heavy weapons teams to back up your army and have cheap objectives. or a fav of mine orks but with some eldar allies to help them blow through armor. and have some fire support to help the lads get in combat
53985
Post by: TheKbob
I like people lauding the idea that they have to stick with the weaknesses of their armies after allies are introduced and then rules are dramatically changed.
I play four armies. Two of them have older books that aren't as competitive, Wolves and Sisters. I'm sorry I want to make up for their abysmal lack of AA with a completely rules legal method. Oh wait, I'm not! Every Marines codex now has some form of valid AA, be it good, bad, or indifferent except Wolves. So can the crap on that. Yes, I'd even take expensive Flakk... I wouldn't be great at AA, but I'd have the option.
And Sisters? Someone really wanna give a sisters player crap for making the difference when we have a white Dwarf codex? Haha, that's rich! Talk about bad allies matrix, though, we're better buds with Xenos than freaking Black Templars!
My Crons and GKs don't need allies but I will ally them forever just to see the nerd rage.
Some of us bring TAC lists. To do so, you need a solution for every occasion. Allies is a way of patching up holes in older books and makes fun lists outta new books. Daemons and CSM all day. Eldar and tau, too! Bring on all the allies!
33160
Post by: Iur_tae_mont
I love allies.
I don't use them with my Tau, but that's because I've never really liked even using Kroot in my Tau lists, but there's so much cool stuff you can do now. You can now make almost any Chaos Warband and be extremely fluffy using either IG or Daemon allies. Something that has been otherwise difficult for the past 8 years or so.
58175
Post by: MarkCron
I don't think allies is cheating, but like the OP I prefer to have single codex army lists. Dealing with the weaknesses of the army is more interesting and makes one a better player imo.
Course, as a Cron player, it is probably easier for me to say that.
However, there is an enormous appeal to being able to take 500-750pts of an army I don't play just to test or play models I find cool.  However, over time, I've found myself back at single codex armies more often. Allies seems like a passing fad for me.
28305
Post by: Talizvar
Yes allies can be used to make up for weaknesses in your primary army so it has the smell of cheating.
I like the Inquisition. It is the reason why I bought IG and SM's as allies in the old codex.
I like Chaos. It is the reason why I bought demons and CSM's and all the various cult types they were all one group in the old codex's.
There is ample fluff out there to justify most alliances.
It is a shame about the Tyranids if any group could use allies but as pointed out: they do not play with their food.
It is these Chimera lists that make it tough:
Orks and Tau scare me to no end.
When I think of Tau and CSM I think of the below picture:
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
If you play Tau, you're not old school.
56004
Post by: Lucarikx
At my local GW, we used to have em all the time. My friend and I always had the craziest combo: BA with Daemons or CSM.
As for the allies system, I think it make the game more interesting. Sure you have silly armies (I hate playing vs CSM/Necrons or GK/Necrons), but its still a game - so have fun with it.
Lucarikx
72167
Post by: Boniface
Wait... Tau playing = can't be old school?
That's a weird statement.
Depends how you define old school I guess. Sounds a little like saying if you use anything but an abacus your not old school.
Tau are like iPhones of the 40k universe newish fresh and way better than your old Nokia 3210.
It's like an upgrade
43972
Post by: GreyHamster
That is indeed perfect for when I have Broadsides supporting Plague Marines.
56004
Post by: Lucarikx
Boniface wrote:Wait... Tau playing = can't be old school? That's a weird statement. Depends how you define old school I guess. Sounds a little like saying if you use anything but an abacus your not old school. Tau are like iPhones of the 40k universe newish fresh and way better than your old Nokia 3210. It's like an upgrade To tell you the truth I think Tau are more like Samsung Galaxy's Lucarikx
72167
Post by: Boniface
Love it. Although I do feel like my previous comment erroded my original point slightly.
There is a lot of Tau hate.
Back on topic I don't think outdated codices count as much with allies. It's not really fair to have an army with little/no AA versus some of the current stuff. Like dark angels with little AA (although this seems to be improving)
I know DA are new. Was my other army for many years.
44749
Post by: Skriker
Boniface wrote:Maybe I'm too old-school... I dunno, but i feel like allies is the equivalent of cheating.
I play Tau (Yes, i've read/heard the rants about overpoweredness) but i feel that if i added, say, eldar i would just make an apparently harder army impossible to beat.
I feel so much so that i refuse to play anything other than pure tau despite how easy it would be to write it into the fluff.
anyone else feel like this?
Really depends on why you are doing it. If you are doing it to tell a cool story, make a neat force that specifically fits the fluff for your campaign involvement allies are awesome. Also some allies have long been meant to go together in the genre: CSMs and Chaos Daemons; Marines and IG are the obvious ones.
Where it gets annoying is where everyone and their brother in a LGS all have eldar contingents on their armies ONLY so that the can get a farseer to doom enemy units and wield other psychic might. It gets boring really quick and just makes for stupid games. The allies system is always going to be open to abuse from those people who want to munchkin out their force in order to WAAC. To be fair, though, without the ally rules these types of players would just figure out how to achieve their WAAC aims within their own codex. They'd still have the same mentality in games so removing allies wouldn't make their play style go away.
The implementation of the allies table just defies even the simplest of logic to explain the whole thing. How can multiple space marine chapters ally more effectively with XENOS forces than with each other? I don't care if your chapter has a rivalry with another you are both still space marine chapters under the emperor's will. Makes zero sense to me. Perhaps if allies were an optional rule that required opponent approval before a game people would be less inclined to try and munckin them all the time. The fluff has often portrayed the eldar attitudes towards the lesser races: Those they are allied with today are just enemies that they are not fighting yet.  Can't imagine why a farseer would waste her powers on such non-eldar filth. Anyone allying with eldar should always be at the worst level possible to account for this IMNSHO.
Skriker
66089
Post by: Kangodo
So?
I've seen some old-school models, I am glad the game and the models have improved over time
Maybe you are just joking..
But it's out of place in a thread where I am already considered a cheater because I like Tau and I want to play them as allies (don't have the funding to instantly buy an army).
28259
Post by: Ugly Green Trog
I think the allies table needs a serious rework. Basically they should have made it fluffy with additional rules. All imperial ally well together guard also ally with chaos to allow traitor guard.
Other armies should have rules for example all space marines suffer not the alien to live, burn the xenos and the heretic etc. this should mean desperate allies at best so the allies suffer a leadership hit or something like the flee rules from distrusted allies in whfb where if they flee through a unit they take D6 hits etc.
Dark angels should have to roll a dice for every enemy squad leader killed on a 6 it is the fallen and once he's dead they lose interest in the fight and take a ld hit to represent the fact that their primary objective has been reached and they are unwilling to sit around and take losses now that the fallen is taken.
Stuff like that would really make things more interesting on the allies table.
69239
Post by: Thokt
Kain wrote:Thokt wrote:Allies are incredibly lame IMO. The armies are what they are - allies really breaks up the spirit of the game for me. I don't think allies are particularly fluffy either - just because something needs fluff to be explained does not make it fluffier than anything else.
Beyond that, I think the tables start to look pretty silly when one game has four mix n match forces on them.
So Chaos Daemons and Chaos Space Marines must part ways?
What about the Guard and Space Marines/SoBs?
Or the Tau and Eldar (who do have many reasons to be together)?
What about Ork mercenaries?
You got me there Kain. I did balk at Daemons and CSM being separated, and for fluffier or odd scenario battles Imperium/Imperium allies seem alright to me. Anything else though, such as Ork as mercs, Tau with Eldar, etc. is too much. The fact is, most players aren't taking allies due to fluff reasons, but instead to cover weaknesses in their primary army. And that, is not a system I'm a fan of.
28305
Post by: Talizvar
GreyHamster wrote:That is indeed perfect for when I have Broadsides supporting Plague Marines.
Ah yes sorry, I was thinking of this little fellow like the rabbit from the Quest for the Holy Grail "That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on! ".
Lucky my BT's have the grenade of Antioch.
57646
Post by: Kain
Thokt wrote: Kain wrote:Thokt wrote:Allies are incredibly lame IMO. The armies are what they are - allies really breaks up the spirit of the game for me. I don't think allies are particularly fluffy either - just because something needs fluff to be explained does not make it fluffier than anything else.
Beyond that, I think the tables start to look pretty silly when one game has four mix n match forces on them.
So Chaos Daemons and Chaos Space Marines must part ways?
What about the Guard and Space Marines/SoBs?
Or the Tau and Eldar (who do have many reasons to be together)?
What about Ork mercenaries?
You got me there Kain. I did balk at Daemons and CSM being separated, and for fluffier or odd scenario battles Imperium/Imperium allies seem alright to me. Anything else though, such as Ork as mercs, Tau with Eldar, etc. is too much. The fact is, most players aren't taking allies due to fluff reasons, but instead to cover weaknesses in their primary army. And that, is not a system I'm a fan of.
It's heavily implied (and outright bashed in our faces in Xenology) that the Eldar had a hand in forming the Tau into what they are, and the Eldar are often the first to form alliances with reasonable factions to deal with a greater threat.
And Ork mercenaries are a fact of life, even the Imperium uses them (heck even a PURITAN inquisitor used them in Retribution) they're reliable, they get the job done, and theyre relatively cheap due to their nonstandard method of asking for payment.
Honestly I'd have no complaints with the allies systems if Tyranids could take Tau, Ork, Eldar, and Imperial Guard allies to represent genestealer cults.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
My point is two different play styles. It's not cheating and not even cheesy. Some people are in the game for the game, like challenge and get labeled "WAAC," when a fluffy bunny gets thumped.
It's different styles. Allies was introduced to make money. It's a gateway drug. Regardless of fluff, GW wants you build small armies, get hooked, and then expand.
Also, covering an armies weakness is fluffy. If a unit of space Marines know they are lacking in X and that happens to present itself in either some Bros or unexpected allies, they'd take advantage of that situation.
All I hear is butt hurt from the forge the narrative folks. "Allies are only cool if it makes sense." To you. If someone wants orks and crons, go for it. I don't need a reason to play a rousing game of shoot that guy. Fundamentally this is an argument against people who want a tough challenging game versus fluff folks. Cheating is breaking the rules. It's in the core book, thus not breaking the rules to do it.
69239
Post by: Thokt
Sure, you can fluff anything, but I think what bothers most players about allies is that it's an immense change to an element of the game which had proceeded largely untouched by previous editions. 40k without allies had a distinctly mavericky maverick feel to its forces. I like a challenge, but I'm not interested in the ability of others to create nigh flawless forces via mix n' match in a fairly unbalanced rules set. When I see two armies as one on the table it just feels wrong, probably because its done for all the wrong reasons. And since the OP asked if it feels like cheating, not whether or not any one literally believes that it is cheating, it's a fair answer to say that yes, it does feel a bit like cheating
.
73999
Post by: Haight
dementedwombat wrote:I don't have any objection to them other than the fact that the allies matrix is a bit wonky at times. I don't use them, but that's mostly because I don't feel like buying a second codex and some models for an army I might never actually play.
To summarize, I think it's a pretty cool idea that probably didn't get executed as well as it could have.
Definitely this. I look at some of the allies matrix kind of like my dog looks at me when i talk to her : head cocked to one side with a "whatchu talkin' 'bout Willis" sort of expression.
That said ... I do like the allies matrix. I think it makes for fun and thematic armies and battles. It also gives me a reason to stray into other armies that i like, without feeling like i have to go whole hog or i'm wasting my money. Clearly there is a marketing angle to this, and from that perspective, it's working (at least on me). If i couldn't take space marines or guard as allies with my Tau, then i likely would not purchase SM or Guard, etc.
-- Haight
64616
Post by: Color Sgt. Kell
I agree. Mostly because literally no one is doing it for fluffy reasons, and only to get that extra cheap weapon or character that their army can't have
63303
Post by: captain bloody fists
FreddieTau6 wrote:i've used allies since the start of 6th but only when i was wanting to start a new army, par example i took my main army at the time which was Blood Angels and allied in some Tau because i was wanting to start a tau force and utilised allies there to try out different units with my tau and continued to until my Tau force was big enough to stand on its own 2 Hoofs!
then like wise i used Eldar allies with my Tau when i decided i wanted to start and Eldar army and so the process repeated, now i have Fully fledged armies of space marines, tau and eldar and use no allies.
that for me was a perfect use of the system, and my 2 pennies on it 
I like your thought process there.
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
Kangodo wrote:So?
I've seen some old-school models, I am glad the game and the models have improved over time
Maybe you are just joking..
But it's out of place in a thread where I am already considered a cheater because I like Tau and I want to play them as allies (don't have the funding to instantly buy an army).
There's no harm in not being old-school. It means you're not old.
But the true "old school" of 40K, RT & 2nd Edition, actually did have allies, and Tau didn't exist back then.
It was the "middle school" (and, appropriately enough, the quality and depth of the game was about on par for what you'd expect from middle schoolers) where allies were eliminated.
71489
Post by: Troike
Veteran Sergeant wrote:But the true "old school" of 40K, RT & 2nd Edition, actually did have allies, and Tau didn't exist back then.
How did it work compared to in 6th? I recall hearing something about Sisters being allies for Imperial factions back then, but that's all I know.
43757
Post by: BlackRaven1987!!
It sounds like most of you at least have the option for allies I really want to run some just so I can do some cool fluffy lists or maybe use the double force org but everyone at my local shop will only play 1999+1 or 1999 + 501 no allies allowed games even the tournaments are set up this way. I honestly think it is against the rules to do this actually more so than the use of allies or double force org is cheating. What do you guys think?
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
Troike wrote: Veteran Sergeant wrote:But the true "old school" of 40K, RT & 2nd Edition, actually did have allies, and Tau didn't exist back then.
How did it work compared to in 6th? I recall hearing something about Sisters being allies for Imperial factions back then, but that's all I know.
Each army had a list of allies, and typically they were part of the Support allowance, which was typically 50% of the total points.
Sisters had an Allies Allowance of 25% that didn't come out of Support. But that was mostly because the original Sisters list was fairly small.
Allies weren't really very well regulated, lol. But, then again, these were the days before netlists being everywhere, so I never noticed any hardcore abuse of allies. In fact, very few people even used them in my local meta.
But, of course, like all things 2nd Edition, mileage varies. Lots of people talk about local metas where WAAC was normal, as were virus grenades and vortex grenades. Those things were communally banned in mine and were never an issue.
63092
Post by: MarsNZ
Kain wrote:
Honestly I'd have no complaints with the allies systems if Tyranids could take Tau, Ork, Eldar, and Imperial Guard allies to represent genestealer cults.
I would. No doubt we'd see minimum guard (ie the actual cultists) then a load of tanks, artillery, Vendetta/Valkerie and all the other goodies that absolutely wouldn't fit a cult army.
Honestly Genestealer cults could be dealt with the same as Chaos cults, a single troop choice with a few lacklustre upgrades.
16698
Post by: andrewm9
The only thing that bugs me about allies is that upsets the idea the point costs on codices are only balanced against the codex. With allies that really has to change. 12 points from one codex really must work out to 12 points in another codex. Maybe they are working towards that thanks to taking multilevel. Editions to update some codices it's kind of broken now. No one can really tell me that a Canoness has the same worth a Dark Angel Librarian of that an Ecclesiarchy Priest is worth almost as much as a Blood Angel Sanguinary Priest or almost twice as much as a Grey Knight Ordo Malleus Inquisitor.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of allies. In fact my 8000 points worth of Imperial Guard grew out of some allies for my Sisters in Apocalypse, but with lack of consistent design philosophy, it kind of turns the point system on its ear.
38817
Post by: dracpanzer
TheKbob wrote:It's different styles. Allies was introduced to make money. It's a gateway drug. Regardless of fluff, GW wants you build small armies, get hooked, and then expand.
Not sure why they changed gears, I had seven different 2k (at least) 40k armies before 6ed. I'm totally arsed now that they've shifted into plastic drug dealer mode.
I like allies for a number of reasons, possibilities exist that don't always set well with me, that will be focused on by players who care more about WAAC at all costs. Personally I'm looking forward to using the Allies matrix for "counts as" SoB sternguard with combi-weapons in a Pod. I know SoB don't have pods, but I don't really care, I have a lot of stormbolter SoB that I need to do something with. Filing off a barrel, slapping a flamer or melta bit on there and calling it a Godwyn-Diaz combi-flamer/combi-bolter is fine by me. Also the only way I get to field the SoB squad on Bikes I scratchbuilt back in the days of the 3ed black book.
My list of Codex Space Marines I've got planned as "counts as" SoB starts with Korsarro Khan, command squad on bikes, above mentioned Sternguard in a pod, squad of SoB scouts with packs, cloaks, and sniper rifles, a flying storm talon thingie combined with all those cathedral and candle bits from the DA flyer and a Vindicator with a huge fluer-dy-lys on the shield. Because there just isn't a bigger bolter than the one the Vindicator totes around. Holy trinity on outflank will be fun.
65311
Post by: Vineheart01
the bringing in other armies to strengthen your weakness doesnt bug me, though i dont do it becuase i prefer whole armies. Some of the Battle Brothers however are capable of pulling some really cheesy strats...and that i find annoying.
43386
Post by: Tyr Grimtooth
My only desired allies follows along the line of a fellow Wolves plyers; fluff builds for fun.
BA Librarian with Death Company = 13th Co and Wulfen
IG platoons = Aettguard
Not the best use of points in an allied chart and not using anything from the allied army to plug holes in my army list. I would just like to have some semblance of a 13th Co roaming the battlefield or members of the Aettguard in play for fluff reasons.
57646
Post by: Kain
MarsNZ wrote: Kain wrote:
Honestly I'd have no complaints with the allies systems if Tyranids could take Tau, Ork, Eldar, and Imperial Guard allies to represent genestealer cults.
I would. No doubt we'd see minimum guard (ie the actual cultists) then a load of tanks, artillery, Vendetta/Valkerie and all the other goodies that absolutely wouldn't fit a cult army.
Honestly Genestealer cults could be dealt with the same as Chaos cults, a single troop choice with a few lacklustre upgrades.
So?
You get to do it, why can't I?
Also cultist type squads would be useless in an army that already has gants and gaunts.
46877
Post by: Mythal
Kain wrote:MarsNZ wrote: Kain wrote:
Honestly I'd have no complaints with the allies systems if Tyranids could take Tau, Ork, Eldar, and Imperial Guard allies to represent genestealer cults.
I would. No doubt we'd see minimum guard (ie the actual cultists) then a load of tanks, artillery, Vendetta/Valkerie and all the other goodies that absolutely wouldn't fit a cult army.
Honestly Genestealer cults could be dealt with the same as Chaos cults, a single troop choice with a few lacklustre upgrades.
So?
You get to do it, why can't I?
Also cultist type squads would be useless in an army that already has gants and gaunts.
I think his point was that they would no longer accurately represent Genestealer Cults. And you make the point yourself: when you say you want Cults, what you really want is artillery and fliers (which there's nothing inherently wrong with; if it's in the rules, you're allowed to do whatever you want in order to win, whether or not it's to everyone's taste). I use Imperial Guard to counts-as my Zealots, which were a legal Troops choice for me until the WD minidex - run them with a hell-raising preacher (counts-as Lord Commissar). It's not the most efficient use of a few hundred points, but it's fluffy as hell - especially with Kyrinov to whip them into an unstoppable frenzy, and a Canoness (Errant - I loved that book).
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Read through the full thread, and I gotta chime in that the idea behind it was a good one, just poorly handled. CSM and CDs allying? Makes perfect sense. Crons allying with GK? Wtf? My BT make crappy allies with GK, and those are supposed to be the only psykers BT are okay with. The BT book even suggests they hate all psykers except GK ones. It doesn't say they hate all of them, but hate the GK ones a teensie bit less. Hopefully a 'stealer cult supplement will come out that can ally with Nids, because you guys really got the short end of the stick. Hell, it's possible that my memory is wrong, but I'm pretty sure GK ally better with SoB than they do BT. Does that seem okay to anyone else?
46877
Post by: Mythal
Right up until the GKs flay them alive and wear their scalps as hats.
44749
Post by: Skriker
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Allies weren't really very well regulated, lol. But, then again, these were the days before netlists being everywhere, so I never noticed any hardcore abuse of allies. In fact, very few people even used them in my local meta.
But, of course, like all things 2nd Edition, mileage varies. Lots of people talk about local metas where WAAC was normal, as were virus grenades and vortex grenades. Those things were communally banned in mine and were never an issue.
Allies were worse back in 2nd because of there were zero controls. One plus on allies now is that they are definitely controlled. Got really fed up facing "Blood Angel" armies that included a single unit of less than 10 death company with a chaplain, a unit of 3 bikes, an inqusitor lord in terminator armor with displacer field and then a handful of high powered eldar special characters. At least now you can get a single farseer, but that far seer has to be supported by troops and can then include up to one of each none troop slot. So allies are really much less painful than they used to be.
The table just looks put together really haphazardly. I have to say I can see the point of those who don't want fluff involved in the table, even though fluff is more my preference.  That said a straight non-fluff method would be to give every army perhaps 1 or 2 other forces they could ally with at the highest level, maybe 2 at the middle level and then maybe 4 or 5 they could ally with at the lowest level. Thus every force gets the same number of options for allies that can work completely together, sharing psychic powers and so on, but a handful that are not quite that great. 'Nids should get the same treatment as all other armies since we are taking fluff out of the equation. As it stands some armies are inundated with ally options and some are very limited or have none.
Skriker
57646
Post by: Kain
Mythal wrote: Kain wrote:MarsNZ wrote: Kain wrote:
Honestly I'd have no complaints with the allies systems if Tyranids could take Tau, Ork, Eldar, and Imperial Guard allies to represent genestealer cults.
I would. No doubt we'd see minimum guard (ie the actual cultists) then a load of tanks, artillery, Vendetta/Valkerie and all the other goodies that absolutely wouldn't fit a cult army.
Honestly Genestealer cults could be dealt with the same as Chaos cults, a single troop choice with a few lacklustre upgrades.
So?
You get to do it, why can't I?
Also cultist type squads would be useless in an army that already has gants and gaunts.
I think his point was that they would no longer accurately represent Genestealer Cults. And you make the point yourself: when you say you want Cults, what you really want is artillery and fliers (which there's nothing inherently wrong with; if it's in the rules, you're allowed to do whatever you want in order to win, whether or not it's to everyone's taste). I use Imperial Guard to counts-as my Zealots, which were a legal Troops choice for me until the WD minidex - run them with a hell-raising preacher (counts-as Lord Commissar). It's not the most efficient use of a few hundred points, but it's fluffy as hell - especially with Kyrinov to whip them into an unstoppable frenzy, and a Canoness (Errant - I loved that book).
Everyone else gets to do it, why can't I? Arbitrarily punishing someone for choosing an army is dumb which is why me and those who play with me use a more inclusive chart.
74572
Post by: Gandohar
I don't like them and I never play with them based on principal. Why not just let players create an army list choosing units from every different army?
46877
Post by: Mythal
Kain wrote:Mythal wrote: Kain wrote:MarsNZ wrote: Kain wrote:
Honestly I'd have no complaints with the allies systems if Tyranids could take Tau, Ork, Eldar, and Imperial Guard allies to represent genestealer cults.
I would. No doubt we'd see minimum guard (ie the actual cultists) then a load of tanks, artillery, Vendetta/Valkerie and all the other goodies that absolutely wouldn't fit a cult army.
Honestly Genestealer cults could be dealt with the same as Chaos cults, a single troop choice with a few lacklustre upgrades.
So?
You get to do it, why can't I?
Also cultist type squads would be useless in an army that already has gants and gaunts.
I think his point was that they would no longer accurately represent Genestealer Cults. And you make the point yourself: when you say you want Cults, what you really want is artillery and fliers (which there's nothing inherently wrong with; if it's in the rules, you're allowed to do whatever you want in order to win, whether or not it's to everyone's taste). I use Imperial Guard to counts-as my Zealots, which were a legal Troops choice for me until the WD minidex - run them with a hell-raising preacher (counts-as Lord Commissar). It's not the most efficient use of a few hundred points, but it's fluffy as hell - especially with Kyrinov to whip them into an unstoppable frenzy, and a Canoness (Errant - I loved that book).
Everyone else gets to do it, why can't I? Arbitrarily punishing someone for choosing an army is dumb which is why me and those who play with me use a more inclusive chart.
I mustn't have been clear - I said that the point wasn't about the rectitude of the Allies table in terms of balance; it was the disingenuous justification. Personally, I don't have any issue with folks house-ruling their own Allies table. As to arbitrary punishment for choosing an army, wait until you've had the same Codex for eight years, only for it to be replaced with an abortion of a WD article that illegalises all but one of your scoring unit options.
57646
Post by: Kain
Mythal wrote: Kain wrote:Mythal wrote: Kain wrote:MarsNZ wrote: Kain wrote:
Honestly I'd have no complaints with the allies systems if Tyranids could take Tau, Ork, Eldar, and Imperial Guard allies to represent genestealer cults.
I would. No doubt we'd see minimum guard (ie the actual cultists) then a load of tanks, artillery, Vendetta/Valkerie and all the other goodies that absolutely wouldn't fit a cult army.
Honestly Genestealer cults could be dealt with the same as Chaos cults, a single troop choice with a few lacklustre upgrades.
So?
You get to do it, why can't I?
Also cultist type squads would be useless in an army that already has gants and gaunts.
I think his point was that they would no longer accurately represent Genestealer Cults. And you make the point yourself: when you say you want Cults, what you really want is artillery and fliers (which there's nothing inherently wrong with; if it's in the rules, you're allowed to do whatever you want in order to win, whether or not it's to everyone's taste). I use Imperial Guard to counts-as my Zealots, which were a legal Troops choice for me until the WD minidex - run them with a hell-raising preacher (counts-as Lord Commissar). It's not the most efficient use of a few hundred points, but it's fluffy as hell - especially with Kyrinov to whip them into an unstoppable frenzy, and a Canoness (Errant - I loved that book).
Everyone else gets to do it, why can't I? Arbitrarily punishing someone for choosing an army is dumb which is why me and those who play with me use a more inclusive chart.
I mustn't have been clear - I said that the point wasn't about the rectitude of the Allies table in terms of balance; it was the disingenuous justification. Personally, I don't have any issue with folks house-ruling their own Allies table. As to arbitrary punishment for choosing an army, wait until you've had the same Codex for eight years, only for it to be replaced with an abortion of a WD article that illegalises all but one of your scoring unit options.
My wife plays SoBs among other things you know. I think I know the feeling by proxy.
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
Kain wrote:MarsNZ wrote: Kain wrote:
Honestly I'd have no complaints with the allies systems if Tyranids could take Tau, Ork, Eldar, and Imperial Guard allies to represent genestealer cults.
I would. No doubt we'd see minimum guard (ie the actual cultists) then a load of tanks, artillery, Vendetta/Valkerie and all the other goodies that absolutely wouldn't fit a cult army.
Honestly Genestealer cults could be dealt with the same as Chaos cults, a single troop choice with a few lacklustre upgrades.
So?
You get to do it, why can't I?
Also cultist type squads would be useless in an army that already has gants and gaunts.
Some of us who played Genestealer Cult would rather see the army come back the way it is supposed to, rather than see it get fluff raped with Allies.
Genestealer Cult was never Tyranids + Imperial Guard, or Tyranids + Cultists.
It was Genestealers plus those things. I'd be willing to allow the allies, but only if the Tyranid units allowed to an IGuard army were limited to Broodlords and Genestealers.
Once the actual Tyranids show up, the cultists get eaten alongside everyone else. There's no discrimination in the Tyranid society. Everyone who isn't a Tyranid, is food. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kain wrote: Everyone else gets to do it, why can't I? Arbitrarily punishing someone for choosing an army is dumb which is why me and those who play with me use a more inclusive chart.
For something to be arbitrary, it means for it to have occurred "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."
Tyranids don't have allies because there's no reason for them to have them, and it doesn't fit into the system's universe.
57646
Post by: Kain
Veteran Sergeant wrote: Kain wrote:MarsNZ wrote: Kain wrote:
Honestly I'd have no complaints with the allies systems if Tyranids could take Tau, Ork, Eldar, and Imperial Guard allies to represent genestealer cults.
I would. No doubt we'd see minimum guard (ie the actual cultists) then a load of tanks, artillery, Vendetta/Valkerie and all the other goodies that absolutely wouldn't fit a cult army.
Honestly Genestealer cults could be dealt with the same as Chaos cults, a single troop choice with a few lacklustre upgrades.
So?
You get to do it, why can't I?
Also cultist type squads would be useless in an army that already has gants and gaunts.
Some of us who played Genestealer Cult would rather see the army come back the way it is supposed to, rather than see it get fluff raped with Allies.
Genestealer Cult was never Tyranids + Imperial Guard, or Tyranids + Cultists.
It was Genestealers plus those things. I'd be willing to allow the allies, but only if the Tyranid units allowed to an IGuard army were limited to Broodlords and Genestealers.
Once the actual Tyranids show up, the cultists get eaten alongside everyone else. There's no discrimination in the Tyranid society. Everyone who isn't a Tyranid, is food. 
On the other hand I routinely see Grey knights and Necrons being short of total bros.
Clearly the matrix was never particularly fluffy to begin with.
And I do sometimes use the fly lords of terra Genestealer cult list and ally it with my tyranids.
68345
Post by: xXWeaponPrimeXx
I do. Each codex gives you enough to win any game with proper strategy and good dice rolls. I don't guard tanks and space marine beefiness to steam roll someone. Or, ya know, whatever.
16698
Post by: andrewm9
xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:I do. Each codex gives you enough to win any game with proper strategy and good dice rolls. I don't guard tanks and space marine beefiness to steam roll someone. Or, ya know, whatever.
Some codices a great deal more skill in that department than others.
57646
Post by: Kain
andrewm9 wrote: xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:I do. Each codex gives you enough to win any game with proper strategy and good dice rolls. I don't guard tanks and space marine beefiness to steam roll someone. Or, ya know, whatever.
Some codices a great deal more skill in that department than others.
The Black Templars= 40k on Hard mode.
68077
Post by: guinness707
Zweischneid wrote:1) List-building in 40K is always open to "abuse", adding allies doesn't worsen the problem much, if at all.
2) Allies are true old-school 40K. I grew up with a 40K were allies were the norm.
3) Allies (especially everyone-can-ally-with-everyone-apocalypse-allies) mitigate the heavy role of lists (and imbalanced Codexes) by giving every player potential access to every tool, making 40K - probably for the first time in history - a game somewhat competitive.
4) 16 Codex books without allies gives you 256 possible match-ups to play the game. 16 Codex books with up to (on average) 3 allies-option per Codex already give you already well over 4,000 possible match-ups to play the game. 16 Codex books with all-out Apocalypse everyone-can-be-allies-with-everyone gives you well over 65,000 possible match-ups to play the game. The sheer amount of diversity added to the game with allies (or taken away without allies) is mind-blowing.
5) Nobody is forcing anyone to take allies. If you prefer 40K without allies, don't take allies. It's an option that is there for people that like it, and an option you don't have to use if you don't. Everyone wins.
You know, when I started reading this post I was against allies in general and i've never had a need to use them in any of my 6th ed games so far, but you just hit it on the head with #2. How could I have forgotten that? There werent even codexes back then and nothing prohibited you from giving your space marines Shuriken catapults or your guardsman bolters. Thank you sir for reminding me about that. I'm all for allies now, bring it on. Gives me an excuse to use my nids with....oh wait...nm.
68345
Post by: xXWeaponPrimeXx
Kain wrote:andrewm9 wrote: xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:I do. Each codex gives you enough to win any game with proper strategy and good dice rolls. I don't guard tanks and space marine beefiness to steam roll someone. Or, ya know, whatever.
Some codices a great deal more skill in that department than others.
The Black Templars= 40k on Hard mode.
Black Templars = TRUE WIN!
74176
Post by: ComTrav
I have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand, I agree with others that I play because I like them, warts and wall. I love Orks, and sticking in a unit with a power armor save feels really bizarre. And sometimes it just feels to break the theme (what, this warlock just happened to show up with a handful of Dire Avengers to help out my Waaagh? I guess the Eldar really are mysterious and unfathomable!)
On the other hand, it does make it easier to "plug and play" whatever models I like on the table. (Hey, I can't decide if I should start White Scars or IG...how about....BOTH!?!?)
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Lol, you call that hard?
You should play Necrons and try to convince your friends that you play them because you love the models and think the 'spirit' of their rules are interesting.
I could play a naked Overlord with 2x 5 Warriors in a 1500pnt-game and people would still accuse me of making a cheesy list.
57646
Post by: Kain
Kangodo wrote:Lol, you call that hard?
You should play Necrons and try to convince your friends that you play them because you love the models and think the 'spirit' of their rules are interesting.
I could play a naked Overlord with 2x 5 Warriors in a 1500pnt-game and people would still accuse me of making a cheesy list.
Is it even legal to make a list that far under a points limit? I know some tournaments would at best laugh and say "okay where's the real list" or at worst kick you out for "wasting their time" if you tried that.
44989
Post by: scottmmmm
dementedwombat wrote:I don't have any objection to them other than the fact that the allies matrix is a bit wonky at times.
I agree with this, as an example it says that I can ally Grey Knights with my Black Templars, despite the fact that Black Templars completely and utterly hate all psychers. It's stupid and I refuse to do it (even though I really like the Grey Knights models)
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
scottmmmm wrote: dementedwombat wrote:I don't have any objection to them other than the fact that the allies matrix is a bit wonky at times.
I agree with this, as an example it says that I can ally Grey Knights with my Black Templars, despite the fact that Black Templars completely and utterly hate all psychers. It's stupid and I refuse to do it (even though I really like the Grey Knights models)
The Black Templars Codex explicitly spells out that you're not allowed to ally with any psykers EXCEPT Grey Knights, so the hatred obviously doesn't extend as far as you seem to think.
57646
Post by: Kain
AlmightyWalrus wrote:scottmmmm wrote: dementedwombat wrote:I don't have any objection to them other than the fact that the allies matrix is a bit wonky at times.
I agree with this, as an example it says that I can ally Grey Knights with my Black Templars, despite the fact that Black Templars completely and utterly hate all psychers. It's stupid and I refuse to do it (even though I really like the Grey Knights models)
The Black Templars Codex explicitly spells out that you're not allowed to ally with any psykers EXCEPT Grey Knights, so the hatred obviously doesn't extend as far as you seem to think.
Yeah the whole "Chosen sons of the Emperor himself" thing outweighs the Templar's hatred of mutants.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Kain wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:scottmmmm wrote: dementedwombat wrote:I don't have any objection to them other than the fact that the allies matrix is a bit wonky at times.
I agree with this, as an example it says that I can ally Grey Knights with my Black Templars, despite the fact that Black Templars completely and utterly hate all psychers. It's stupid and I refuse to do it (even though I really like the Grey Knights models)
The Black Templars Codex explicitly spells out that you're not allowed to ally with any psykers EXCEPT Grey Knights, so the hatred obviously doesn't extend as far as you seem to think.
Yeah the whole "Chosen sons of the Emperor himself" thing outweighs the Templar's hatred of mutants.
And the fact that the whole "psykers fall to Chaos, so they're unclean and can't fight alongside us!" schtick doesn't work that well when the psykers in question are Grey Knights.
44989
Post by: scottmmmm
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Kain wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:scottmmmm wrote: dementedwombat wrote:I don't have any objection to them other than the fact that the allies matrix is a bit wonky at times.
I agree with this, as an example it says that I can ally Grey Knights with my Black Templars, despite the fact that Black Templars completely and utterly hate all psychers. It's stupid and I refuse to do it (even though I really like the Grey Knights models)
The Black Templars Codex explicitly spells out that you're not allowed to ally with any psykers EXCEPT Grey Knights, so the hatred obviously doesn't extend as far as you seem to think.
Yeah the whole "Chosen sons of the Emperor himself" thing outweighs the Templar's hatred of mutants.
And the fact that the whole "psykers fall to Chaos, so they're unclean and can't fight alongside us!" schtick doesn't work that well when the psykers in question are Grey Knights.
Fair point (just re-read that rule in the BT codex) but personally I still don't like it. If you really hate psykers and think that they are inherently liable to corruption then you would not want to fight alongside them at all, no exceptions. It feels like they tacked the line about the Grey Knights on to me.
Just my opinion though.
48228
Post by: lazarian
I feel as a houserule simply treating every army as an ally of convenience resolves most of these problems. This solves abuses with battle brothers and gives everyone ample choice in army selection.
47551
Post by: spaztacus
I love it just for the reason that I can cobble together some of my small collections into playable armies. I think having to follow the force org chart makes it more balanced and makes players really think about thier army.
42470
Post by: SickSix
dementedwombat wrote:
To summarize, I think it's a pretty cool idea that probably didn't get executed as well as it could have.
This! I think IG+ SM allies is pretty damn fluffy. Tau + IG (as gue'vesa) is fluffy. It could/can be a great tool but as with anything can also be abused. I think it should have been more restricted.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
scottmmmm wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Kain wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:scottmmmm wrote: dementedwombat wrote:I don't have any objection to them other than the fact that the allies matrix is a bit wonky at times.
I agree with this, as an example it says that I can ally Grey Knights with my Black Templars, despite the fact that Black Templars completely and utterly hate all psychers. It's stupid and I refuse to do it (even though I really like the Grey Knights models)
The Black Templars Codex explicitly spells out that you're not allowed to ally with any psykers EXCEPT Grey Knights, so the hatred obviously doesn't extend as far as you seem to think.
Yeah the whole "Chosen sons of the Emperor himself" thing outweighs the Templar's hatred of mutants.
And the fact that the whole "psykers fall to Chaos, so they're unclean and can't fight alongside us!" schtick doesn't work that well when the psykers in question are Grey Knights.
Fair point (just re-read that rule in the BT codex) but personally I still don't like it. If you really hate psykers and think that they are inherently liable to corruption then you would not want to fight alongside them at all, no exceptions. It feels like they tacked the line about the Grey Knights on to me.
Just my opinion though.
Lets put it this way, their Zeal and Hatred does not extend to them hating something that could explicitly have EVERY SINGLE ALLY in the Imperium turn on them should they turn on the "Emporer's Finest", being excommunicated and convicted of heresy is not something even they would stupidly push for.
71461
Post by: MRPYM
I personally do not like allies. The idea is great but implemented poorly.
My belief is that when you play an army, you work with the strengths AND weaknesses of the army. Those weaknesses are what make each army unique.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
MRPYM wrote:I personally do not like allies. The idea is great but implemented poorly.
My belief is that when you play an army, you work with the strengths AND weaknesses of the army. Those weaknesses are what make each army unique.
Then you should've played 40k before they removed allies.
Though it's not as if weaknesses are what makes an army, considering that many weaknesses are not intentional in most cases, but poorly implemented idea's or horrid balance choices. Like CSM having a horrid elite slot.
The only intentional weakness implemented within an army is tau's lack of CC..And that's also implemented poorly because kroot were meant to be taken to shore it up...But then Kelly made them worse in CC and now their best usage is as SNIPERS. Seriously, that's just bad implementation.
71461
Post by: MRPYM
ZebioLizard2 wrote: MRPYM wrote:I personally do not like allies. The idea is great but implemented poorly.
My belief is that when you play an army, you work with the strengths AND weaknesses of the army. Those weaknesses are what make each army unique.
Then you should've played 40k before they removed allies.
Though it's not as if weaknesses are what makes an army, considering that many weaknesses are not intentional in most cases, but poorly implemented idea's or horrid balance choices. Like CSM having a horrid elite slot.
The only intentional weakness implemented within an army is tau's lack of CC..And that's also implemented poorly because kroot were meant to be taken to shore it up...But then Kelly made them worse in CC and now their best usage is as SNIPERS. Seriously, that's just bad implementation.
What do you mean I should have played 40k before they removed allies?
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
MRPYM wrote: ZebioLizard2 wrote: MRPYM wrote:I personally do not like allies. The idea is great but implemented poorly.
My belief is that when you play an army, you work with the strengths AND weaknesses of the army. Those weaknesses are what make each army unique.
Then you should've played 40k before they removed allies.
Though it's not as if weaknesses are what makes an army, considering that many weaknesses are not intentional in most cases, but poorly implemented idea's or horrid balance choices. Like CSM having a horrid elite slot.
The only intentional weakness implemented within an army is tau's lack of CC..And that's also implemented poorly because kroot were meant to be taken to shore it up...But then Kelly made them worse in CC and now their best usage is as SNIPERS. Seriously, that's just bad implementation.
What do you mean I should have played 40k before they removed allies?
I wonder if you'd have played 40k before they removed allies, would you have felt the same as it was naturally occurring, rather then being reintroduced at long last.
75130
Post by: Ivanzypher
I kinda agree with the OP. If someone has allied guard with their chaos, and modelled them as traitor guard, to make a themed/fluffy army, that's fine. But allying random armies together just to make a stronger list.....I'm not really a fan of.
35710
Post by: Talarn Blackshard
I dont generally take allies, but I might allie some IG with my DA just so i have a reason to build some IG. Don't know if it will expand into a new army or not ..
I think this is what I like best about allies, chance to try new things, in some fashion.
17970
Post by: purplkrush
G00fySmiley wrote:I like allies, brings some diversity and added challenges to a field. also lets you fix and balance out a list. say you want to play dark angels but your flyers suck and you have some imperial guard you can shore up your weakness with a Valkyrie, and add in a few sniper or heavy weapons teams to back up your army and have cheap objectives. or a fav of mine orks but with some eldar allies to help them blow through armor. and have some fire support to help the lads get in combat
And this is exactly why Allies are so suspect. Rather than flowing with the background the Allies are used to create game-breaking number-crunching exercises that were not meant to be seen on the battlefield. I began in 2nd/3rd and Chaos/Daemons, and other combinations, were not allies so much as different heads of the same Hydra. It's good to see it back, but this implementation feels forced and awkward.
3802
Post by: chromedog
I didn't use allies in 2nd ed when they were allowed.
It's not so much "cheating" as wtf?
Did GW not even pay attention to their own fluff?
Chaos allying with necrons?
The imperium allying with ANY xenos?
Sure, certain inquisitors might do it, and there was that little thing in Firewarrior, but for the most part, they get along like one religious sect and another sect from their own religion.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
Allies is not in the spirit of the game....
It does sell more models....
Well, glad to get that ethical decision out in the open....
Good Job GW
35090
Post by: war
Allies are the only way to get inquisitors and henchmen into a sisters list. I'm good with allies until I can get them in the list without using the GK codex.
Stupid GK jerks...
69938
Post by: General Annoyance
I don't think it is cheating in any way
when you think about it, you are spending your points on different models rather than having more from your first codex. some allies (space marines, eldar) are downright expensive, so they might foil your primary detachment of IG, say. and even if the detachment covers up the primary's weaknesses, that allied detachment is both A. small, and B. has its own weaknesses.
take this Tau and Eldar combo that is cropping up a lot. you are spending a tonne of points on the Eldar you bring, supposedly to deal with the Tau's horrific CC skills, right? but as we know, they are expensive, elite and easy to kill if you get your moves wrong, and it will be quite easy to get your moves wrong while you are focusing on shooting with one army and assaulting with the other. and once that eldar detachment is dead, you are back to square one again. in short? ITS NOT CHEATING (even though, I agree, it sometimes feels like it is)
GA
P.S if you doubt that, then use this quote from Lord Of The Night
"see how the mighty are fallen"
57646
Post by: Kain
chromedog wrote:I didn't use allies in 2nd ed when they were allowed.
It's not so much "cheating" as wtf?
Did GW not even pay attention to their own fluff?
Chaos allying with necrons?
The imperium allying with ANY xenos?
Sure, certain inquisitors might do it, and there was that little thing in Firewarrior, but for the most part, they get along like one religious sect and another sect from their own religion.
When a space marine chapter is met with a choice between eldar who are willing to talk and genocidal necrons, the space marines usually buddy up with the Eldar for a little to put the mummy killbots away.
Better to kill the alien who wants you dead now and work with the semi reasonable ones for now (you can always kill them later) than fight both at once.
The successful parts of the Imperium wed zeal with pragmatism, after all, one cannot serve the Emperor from a grave dug by foolish errors.
35090
Post by: war
Kain wrote:
The successful parts of the Imperium wed zeal with pragmatism, after all, one cannot serve the Emperor from a grave dug by foolish errors.
Saint Celestine can!
53622
Post by: Gargantuan
chromedog wrote:I didn't use allies in 2nd ed when they were allowed.
It's not so much "cheating" as wtf?
Did GW not even pay attention to their own fluff?
Chaos allying with necrons?
The imperium allying with ANY xenos?
Sure, certain inquisitors might do it, and there was that little thing in Firewarrior, but for the most part, they get along like one religious sect and another sect from their own religion.
The Imperium often have alien allies.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
General Annoyance wrote:I don't think it is cheating in any way
when you think about it, you are spending your points on different models rather than having more from your first codex. some allies (space marines, eldar) are downright expensive, so they might foil your primary detachment of IG, say. and even if the detachment covers up the primary's weaknesses, that allied detachment is both A. small, and B. has its own weaknesses.
take this Tau and Eldar combo that is cropping up a lot. you are spending a tonne of points on the Eldar you bring, supposedly to deal with the Tau's horrific CC skills, right? but as we know, they are expensive, elite and easy to kill if you get your moves wrong, and it will be quite easy to get your moves wrong while you are focusing on shooting with one army and assaulting with the other. and once that eldar detachment is dead, you are back to square one again. in short? ITS NOT CHEATING (even though, I agree, it sometimes feels like it is)
You bring the Eldar to get acces to their amazing psykers, not to cover up Tau's non-existant weakness to CC. Tau don't have psykers of their own, but by paying for a small Guardian squad and a Farseer they get an ML3 psyker with access to Divination.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
Gargantuan wrote: chromedog wrote:I didn't use allies in 2nd ed when they were allowed.
It's not so much "cheating" as wtf?
Did GW not even pay attention to their own fluff?
Chaos allying with necrons?
The imperium allying with ANY xenos?
Sure, certain inquisitors might do it, and there was that little thing in Firewarrior, but for the most part, they get along like one religious sect and another sect from their own religion.
The Imperium often have alien allies.
Apart from the Jokaero (who are basically slaves), I can't think of any alliances with Xenos that aren't the result of Enemy Mine and don't involve the Imperium immediately rushing to backstab their allies before their common enemy stops twitching.
71876
Post by: Rihgu
PrinceRaven wrote: Gargantuan wrote: chromedog wrote:I didn't use allies in 2nd ed when they were allowed.
It's not so much "cheating" as wtf?
Did GW not even pay attention to their own fluff?
Chaos allying with necrons?
The imperium allying with ANY xenos?
Sure, certain inquisitors might do it, and there was that little thing in Firewarrior, but for the most part, they get along like one religious sect and another sect from their own religion.
The Imperium often have alien allies.
Apart from the Jokaero (who are basically slaves), I can't think of any alliances with Xenos that aren't the result of Enemy Mine and don't involve the Imperium immediately rushing to backstab their allies before their common enemy stops twitching.
Grey Knights holding Malantai's spirit stones (after clearing it of daemons) while Iyanden Eldar come to pick them up.
Dante and the Silent King beating off that Tyranid swarm
Cain and those Kroot/Tau (although he does let some Tau infected by genestealers just walk back home without a word so maybe that's backstabbing?)
The end of Dawn of War: Winter Assault
Didn't the Black Crusade event involve Eldar allying with the Imperium?
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
Rihgu wrote: PrinceRaven wrote: Gargantuan wrote: chromedog wrote:I didn't use allies in 2nd ed when they were allowed.
It's not so much "cheating" as wtf?
Did GW not even pay attention to their own fluff?
Chaos allying with necrons?
The imperium allying with ANY xenos?
Sure, certain inquisitors might do it, and there was that little thing in Firewarrior, but for the most part, they get along like one religious sect and another sect from their own religion.
The Imperium often have alien allies.
Apart from the Jokaero (who are basically slaves), I can't think of any alliances with Xenos that aren't the result of Enemy Mine and don't involve the Imperium immediately rushing to backstab their allies before their common enemy stops twitching.
Grey Knights holding Malantai's spirit stones (after clearing it of daemons) while Iyanden Eldar come to pick them up.
Dante and the Silent King beating off that Tyranid swarm
Cain and those Kroot/Tau (although he does let some Tau infected by genestealers just walk back home without a word so maybe that's backstabbing?)
The end of Dawn of War: Winter Assault
Didn't the Black Crusade event involve Eldar allying with the Imperium?
1 - Hmm, that seems almost unreasonably helpful of the Grey Knights, is this Matt Ward's fluff by any chance?
2 - "I know we hate each other, but let's team up to kill these Tyranids" is exactly Enemy Mine.
3 - Still pretty much "Enemy Mine" and setting up a Genestealer cult on a Tau world is definitely backstabbing.
4 - Non-canon.
5 - Even more "Enemy Mine". They probably went right back to being at each other's throats afterwards too.
57646
Post by: Kain
Relic, FFG, Boom comics, and BL are as canon as any codex. Whether they are truthful is another matter.
71876
Post by: Rihgu
If you're really so desperate to use the tropes, then what most of those actually are are http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TeethClenchedTeamwork
And yea, pretty much any official work is canon, anyways.
And Cain didn't "set it up". He let it happen but it's not like he shoved Genestealer eggs down Tau throats.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
Gargantuan wrote: chromedog wrote:I didn't use allies in 2nd ed when they were allowed.
It's not so much "cheating" as wtf?
Did GW not even pay attention to their own fluff?
Chaos allying with necrons?
The imperium allying with ANY xenos?
Sure, certain inquisitors might do it, and there was that little thing in Firewarrior, but for the most part, they get along like one religious sect and another sect from their own religion.
The Imperium often have alien allies.
Suffer not the alien to live....
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
I think Enemy Mine fits better, as it refers to enemies joining together to fight a larger threat, while Teeth-Clenched Teamwork is not getting along with your teammates, but you're still on the same side.
Is Dawn of War considered canonical? I thought it wasn't, which is why they made up a new chapter for it.
I'm not getting into a philosophical debate about the ethics of passive vs active actions, but I will say that Cain did have ample opportunity to warn them and chose not to. Plus I thought we were talking about "the Imperium" not any individual, it's not like after the events of said book the Tau and Imperial forces in the sector went out on a picnic to pick flowers or anything.
57646
Post by: Kain
PrinceRaven wrote:
I think Enemy Mine fits better, as it refers to enemies joining together to fight a larger threat, while Teeth-Clenched Teamwork is not getting along with your teammates, but you're still on the same side.
Is Dawn of War considered canonical? I thought it wasn't, which is why they made up a new chapter for it.
I'm not getting into a philosophical debate about the ethics of passive vs active actions, but I will say that Cain did have ample opportunity to warn them and chose not to. Plus I thought we were talking about "the Imperium" not any individual, it's not like after the events of said book the Tau and Imperial forces in the sector went out on a picnic to pick flowers or anything.
So long as you see that warhammer 40000 logo, it is canon, even if it displays the Emperor as a catgirl eldar loli and the chaos gods as the teenaged mutant ninja turtles.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
Kain wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:
I think Enemy Mine fits better, as it refers to enemies joining together to fight a larger threat, while Teeth-Clenched Teamwork is not getting along with your teammates, but you're still on the same side.
Is Dawn of War considered canonical? I thought it wasn't, which is why they made up a new chapter for it.
I'm not getting into a philosophical debate about the ethics of passive vs active actions, but I will say that Cain did have ample opportunity to warn them and chose not to. Plus I thought we were talking about "the Imperium" not any individual, it's not like after the events of said book the Tau and Imperial forces in the sector went out on a picnic to pick flowers or anything.
So long as you see that warhammer 40000 logo, it is canon, even if it displays the Emperor as a catgirl eldar loli and the chaos gods as the teenaged mutant ninja turtles.
I would so worship Eldar catgirl lolita Emperor over rotting skeleton in a gold toilet Emperor any day.
71876
Post by: Rihgu
PrinceRaven wrote:
I think Enemy Mine fits better, as it refers to enemies joining together to fight a larger threat, while Teeth-Clenched Teamwork is not getting along with your teammates, but you're still on the same side.
Is Dawn of War considered canonical? I thought it wasn't, which is why they made up a new chapter for it.
I'm not getting into a philosophical debate about the ethics of passive vs active actions, but I will say that Cain did have ample opportunity to warn them and chose not to. Plus I thought we were talking about "the Imperium" not any individual, it's not like after the events of said book the Tau and Imperial forces in the sector went out on a picnic to pick flowers or anything.
You know, allies doesn't necessitate picnics and flower picking. Like, pretty much every example of allies in (real life) history. America + the UK, America + Russia in WW2. Germany + Russia in WW2. I think the allies rules do a very bang-up job of displaying alliances within the complicated sociopolitical atmosphere of the 41st millennia.
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
It isn't like 40K itself ever sets up "realistic" battles. So it's hard to use "realism" as a reason why Allies are a bad idea.
People will exploit the allies to make non-fluffy armies just as they will exploit the codex books by themselves to create non-fluffy armies.
69938
Post by: General Annoyance
AlmightyWalrus wrote:General Annoyance wrote:I don't think it is cheating in any way
when you think about it, you are spending your points on different models rather than having more from your first codex. some allies (space marines, eldar) are downright expensive, so they might foil your primary detachment of IG, say. and even if the detachment covers up the primary's weaknesses, that allied detachment is both A. small, and B. has its own weaknesses.
take this Tau and Eldar combo that is cropping up a lot. you are spending a tonne of points on the Eldar you bring, supposedly to deal with the Tau's horrific CC skills, right? but as we know, they are expensive, elite and easy to kill if you get your moves wrong, and it will be quite easy to get your moves wrong while you are focusing on shooting with one army and assaulting with the other. and once that eldar detachment is dead, you are back to square one again. in short? ITS NOT CHEATING (even though, I agree, it sometimes feels like it is)
You bring the Eldar to get acces to their amazing psykers, not to cover up Tau's non-existant weakness to CC. Tau don't have psykers of their own, but by paying for a small Guardian squad and a Farseer they get an ML3 psyker with access to Divination.
oh right, my bad on that one, I wouldn't know cos I've never used that alliance.
"Tau's non existent weakness to CC" - what do you mean by this?
granted, that strategy is good, psykers with a non psyker army, but that doesn't mean that's cheating, does it? even with the great resilliance I have heard about from farseers, it can still be slain along with the guardians and foil your boosted rolls strategy on the Tau.
GA
71876
Post by: Rihgu
I think he means that Tau have so many anti- CC tools in their arsenal that, even though their models aren't actually good *IN* CC, they don't have a weakness to CC.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
PrinceRaven wrote:
I think Enemy Mine fits better, as it refers to enemies joining together to fight a larger threat, while Teeth-Clenched Teamwork is not getting along with your teammates, but you're still on the same side.
Is Dawn of War considered canonical? I thought it wasn't, which is why they made up a new chapter for it.
I'm not getting into a philosophical debate about the ethics of passive vs active actions, but I will say that Cain did have ample opportunity to warn them and chose not to. Plus I thought we were talking about "the Imperium" not any individual, it's not like after the events of said book the Tau and Imperial forces in the sector went out on a picnic to pick flowers or anything.
The chapter Blood Ravens was actually listed in the 4th edition codex, honoring them as an actual chapter and legalizing them in the 40k Universe.
And to be fair, it's a tradition, most groups have their own little chapter of space marine to play with.
Forgeworld has their Minotaurs
Relic has Blood Ravens
FFG games has the Stormwardens
Black Library is the only one I can think of that doesn't have their unique one
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
The Minotaurs aren't Forgeworld's, in the manner that Forgeworld created them. The Minotaurs date back to the old Rogue Trader days.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Veteran Sergeant wrote:The Minotaurs aren't Forgeworld's, in the manner that Forgeworld created them. The Minotaurs date back to the old Rogue Trader days.
Didn't say they did, I said they had their own chapter they play with, and forgeworld produces quite a bit of minotaur related fluff/units.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Rihgu wrote:
I think he means that Tau have so many anti- CC tools in their arsenal that, even though their models aren't actually good *IN* CC, they don't have a weakness to CC.
Yup. It's a weakness comparable to morale for Space Marines; it can screw you over, but you've got plenty of stuff to minimise the effect (unless you're Chaos or BT, but that's another story).
70507
Post by: fullmetaljacket
There is only two things Ive haven't really liked about allies, I play imperial guard so yes i can pretty much ally with anyone but the only models i buy are guard. anyway, yes i can take away challenges easily with help from another army. ( close combat guys with good armour saves come to mind) but i don't and I deal with what i got, ( which I'm not complaining about guard i know have a lot) i enjoy the challenge and enjoy being humans with no special powers or buffs, just big guns and a lot of them.
I also dont like the fact that guard had there own thing, no other army could really pull off the special things some guard units could do at a reasonable point level, with allies Ive seen plenty of blob squads with spam auto cannons and a commissar sitting on an objective, and melta vets flying around in vendettas, and tank/ artillery squadrons in plenty of peoples armies, personally i dont enjoy playing as much knowing my opponent has the same tricks up his sleeve as me and plus some.
Im probably one of the least competitive players around but i love the background and fluff of each army and battle. i personally don't go out of my way to learn all the rules from other codexs, i enjoy being surprised in battles from some crazy power that a daemon has or a cannon that the tau has, i feel it adds realism to the game. an extra element to account for.
so now i still play guard but i mainly play death korps of krieg, no one has my rules and i dont ally with anyone, im sure i could even though they are not technically in the ally matrix but death Korps of Krieg barely like fighting with other guardsmen anyway and other guard forces dont like fighting with death korps of krieg because they tend to be trigger happy an sometimes ignorant of the total strategy. so i just avoid other armies and try pull things off on my own.
Remember
The Emperor Protects!
Thanks for reading!
65162
Post by: TheDraconicLord
PrinceRaven wrote:
I would so worship Eldar catgirl lolita Emperor over rotting skeleton in a gold toilet Emperor any day.
Sigged
44749
Post by: Skriker
I've been playing since Rogue Trader days and my genestealer cult and chaos armies. I DESPISED allies in 2nd edition because there were very few controls on them aside from a percentage of your army. Of course forces in general had the same problem as well, but allies just were readily open to abuse. I dislike the way allies have been implemented now because there seems to be no rhyme or reason for how the allies table was created. It doesn't work with the fluff and it isn't really balanced for all armies either, so we get a mish mash of some armies having numerous good opportunties on the table and others having zero allies at all. I could support it either fluffy or balanced, but not the mess it is. Of course we often still played allies in our games if we came up with a good scenario to play them. Either they were two smaller forces taken by two players on that side of the table, or one play had multiple FoCs in their force, one for each army. It worked fine, but then my group isn't one for WAAC gaming as we've all been doing this for multiple decades now and WAAC just gets dull after a while.
So one doesn't have to have been exposed to allies in the past to accept them fine now. I've been there and done that and still find the allies table a perfect example of interesting idea implemented as dumbly as possible. Even something as simple as making allies *optional* and needing opponent approval would go a long way towards cutting down on the obvious abuses people use them for. Of course in that instance some people would always refuse to play againt allies no matter what, so would still not be a perfect approach.
Skriker
20392
Post by: Farseer Faenyin
Zweischneid wrote: Farseer Faenyin wrote:I love the IDEA of Allies. IG working with Space Marine support is awesome to be able to field on the tabletop for that great feel of an important battle.
Well, I love the IDEA of outlandish combinations.
There's no creative effort involved in running Space Marines + IG or Chaos Marines + Daemons.
I like to see people go the extra mile to make the unexpected options work, both in the game and in the background.
So you love the idea of Necrons and CSM fielded together simply for the spam of very effective flyers?
If so, we are of VERY different ideas on what is 'fun'.
Not discounting your fun, but breaking the fluff of the game in half to win a tournament doesn't seem like much fun to me. If I played the game to be competitive and didn't care about the universe I was playing in, I could do such a thing. But I play 40k not for something competitive to do (that's what sports are for in my little world), but to immerse myself into the fluff and enjoy a game.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Hence I posted pages back this is just a fight between two different viewpoints; the "fluff bunnies," versus "WAAC," players
It's not cheating. It's all about how it's used and how your opponent perceives it. Don't call something you don't like cheating when it's the rulebook.
And you gotta laugh at folks talking about the spirit of the game. That's been long dead. It's the spirit of making money, now. Automatically Appended Next Post: Hence I posted pages back this is just a fight between two different viewpoints; the "fluff bunnies," versus "WAAC," players
It's not cheating. It's all about how it's used and how your opponent perceives it. Don't call something you don't like cheating when it's the rulebook.
And you gotta laugh at folks talking about the spirit of the game. That's been long dead. It's the spirit of making money, now.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Farseer Faenyin wrote:So you love the idea of Necrons and CSM fielded together simply for the spam of very effective flyers?
If so, we are of VERY different ideas on what is 'fun'.
Not discounting your fun, but breaking the fluff of the game in half to win a tournament doesn't seem like much fun to me. If I played the game to be competitive and didn't care about the universe I was playing in, I could do such a thing. But I play 40k not for something competitive to do (that's what sports are for in my little world), but to immerse myself into the fluff and enjoy a game.
Uhm..
1. Necron do not spam Flyers because they are effective for their points.
They spam them because it's a good way to capture objectives in the last turn, people hardly care about that.
If I kick my opponent's ass all game long and he manages to win because he 'steals' the objective at the end, then I am going to walk away feeling like a winner.
2. Who decides what "breaking the fluff" is?
The rulebook says that Crons and CSM can work together, the book is the fluff. So them working together is considered fluff.
It takes me 5 minutes to think up a scenario where they work together: That's what narrative gaming is all about.
28305
Post by: Talizvar
Agree with the idea that if it is in the rules it is not cheating.
The only way I could see something not being in the "spirit" of the game is when I see a poorly worded rule that is in desperate need of an update (the intent is clear by example but the wording butchers it) and have to bite my tongue until that time comes.
Allies allow fun fluff and more elements to hammer the enemy, win-win right?
102
Post by: Jayden63
Allies is the by far the dumbest idea GW has put into print in a long time. Its just so shoe horned in with little to no thought of how it would effect the gaming environment. Nothing stopped people from running duel lists before. 1000 points of this and 1000 points of that vs 2000 points of something else. It was the exact same thing, except it didn't have the stupid matrix.
However, what it did have more or less was opponents permission, if you thought something was stupid or an obvious power play you could always refuse by stating the points limits restriction or just go with it. The choice was yours, now you really can't say no (especially in a tournament) because its by definition legal.
It can be fuffy, it can be narrative, but most often its just bringing more cheap power to already over powered lists. If its so narrative, why doesn't anyone bring the "bad" units from the allied army. Why is it always the most point efficient/powerful units? Arn't (insert bad IG unit here) just as fluffy to be backing up (insert SM faction here) as the power blob and vendettas? After all, your using allies for fluff reasons and not power right?
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
I love allies and how it works mechanically. I love to ally my SOB with my Imperial Fists and will love to try IG allies. CSM are made to go with IG and Demons. A Word Bearer army without traitor guard? Perish the thought.
What I don't like is the nonsensical chart they made. So, space marines will ally with Necrons before SOB? Really? Were they smoking crack when they came up with that? Other than that, I love it! But I go back to Rogue Trader so I'm used to the whole allies thing.
74704
Post by: Naw
I like allies in principle. However they are poorly executed.
The ally mechanism exists just to get around the FOC, allowing double HQ. Players do not pick their allies based on how they look, they cherry pick the best characters and units, allowing at timed some ridiculous combinations that were meant not to be.
More thought should have been put to that than just generate a silly matrix, which doesn't sometimes make a whole lot of sense.
All that being said, as a Blood Angels player I have decided to take Eldar or Tau allies (cherry picking the best choices).
44326
Post by: DeffDred
I don't use allies. I think it's dumb.
But then again I mostly play Orks and Eldar. If I had CSM I'd probably use IG but only to use as more effective cultists and LRBT look cool.
In my imaginary world of space orcs and elves I just don't see them teaming up with space undead or space daemons... or buzzlightyears and evil buzzlightyears.
62560
Post by: Makumba
But orks work very well with necron as ally. , so why not use them?
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Naw wrote:I like allies in principle. However they are poorly executed.
The ally mechanism exists just to get around the FOC, allowing double HQ. Players do not pick their allies based on how they look, they cherry pick the best characters and units, allowing at timed some ridiculous combinations that were meant not to be.
More thought should have been put to that than just generate a silly matrix, which doesn't sometimes make a whole lot of sense.
All that being said, as a Blood Angels player I have decided to take Eldar or Tau allies (cherry picking the best choices).
Oowh, but I do! So your statement is wrong.
I always look at the models first, if I like them I read the fluff and only then do I read the codex and the rules.
I've taken Tau-allies because I like the Tau, I hardly care about their rules. As long as it's not complete suckage, I will play the army I like.
56055
Post by: Backspacehacker
IMO i only would do 2 armys if they were the same race, IE SM and IG, or ELdar and dark eldar, orks and CSM or CSM and demons, i think its a fluff thing
69938
Post by: General Annoyance
Backspacehacker wrote:IMO i only would do 2 armys if they were the same race, IE SM and IG, or ELdar and dark eldar, orks and CSM or CSM and demons, i think its a fluff thing
this is a good point, I think the matrix is a real screw up, most of it makes no sense at all.
Orks and CSM? where's the link there?!  but really Orks can ally with anyone if they are freebooters, so don't worry on that fluff-front.
GA
70507
Post by: fullmetaljacket
I think what backspacehacker was trying to get at with the Orks and CSM was more often then not if orks are fighting along side somebody its with CSM. i can see how CSM would use Orks all the time as little pawns in there overall scheme or plan, and giving them teeth from the millions of skulls they have collected ( even from Orks they have killed in the past!!)
Tony A
45831
Post by: happygolucky
Imo Allies is a great idea, but it all really depends on you and your opponent.
It really depends on the directions of both players armies, are you both playing competitive? if so then go for what covers your weaknesses, if you play fluffy or themed then go with units that fit your theme of your force, if you play casual then go for what you think looks cool.
The problem arises when one opponent exploits it to no end, as with any rule, and they choose the most broken units just so that they can win the game by tabling the other player, it can make the game feel like a chore for the other gamer and this is why most players should have a middle ground when it comes to allies or any rule.
For me I like Allies and I want to make an allied detachment for my CSM with traitor guard and Daemons, but I would bring multiple lists one for a competitive game if my opponent was looking for a game for tournament practice, but I would also bring a casual list for those who just want to enjoy a game and see some epic stuff happen, but this is just my opinion..
69938
Post by: General Annoyance
fullmetaljacket wrote:I think what backspacehacker was trying to get at with the Orks and CSM was more often then not if orks are fighting along side somebody its with CSM. i can see how CSM would use Orks all the time as little pawns in there overall scheme or plan, and giving them teeth from the millions of skulls they have collected ( even from Orks they have killed in the past!!)
Tony A
yes I see what he means now, but they better not be allying with blood axes or freebooters, otherwise they may find that their campaign of slaughter is turned on them.
also orks only like ork teef, so paying them to their standards isn't too easy....
but to the original point, while the matrix and allies have some rough edges, there are points where you see it makes sense. after all, in a galaxy of war and strife, with unspeakable and unbearable forces on your doorstep, unlikely alliances are going to have to be made....
GA
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
General Annoyance wrote: fullmetaljacket wrote:I think what backspacehacker was trying to get at with the Orks and CSM was more often then not if orks are fighting along side somebody its with CSM. i can see how CSM would use Orks all the time as little pawns in there overall scheme or plan, and giving them teeth from the millions of skulls they have collected ( even from Orks they have killed in the past!!)
Tony A
yes I see what he means now, but they better not be allying with blood axes or freebooters, otherwise they may find that their campaign of slaughter is turned on them.
also orks only like ork teef, so paying them to their standards isn't too easy....
but to the original point, while the matrix and allies have some rough edges, there are points where you see it makes sense. after all, in a galaxy of war and strife, with unspeakable and unbearable forces on your doorstep, unlikely alliances are going to have to be made....
GA
Actually you can pay them weapons/gear/vehicles too, not a smart idea too but they'll take it.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
As they are currently used, allies are simply a crutch in at least 75% of games. People like the best things about an army, but don't want to deal with the unique shortcomings of each codex, so they plug holes in an army that is weak in Assault with another army's awesome assault troops, without the urge to ever touch the rest of that codex's stuff.
The other 25% are fluff-based armies, that are usually scoffed at, too.
I remember the "good old days" where I played a pure Space Wolves 13th company force, which due to the rules, were awesome at close-in fighting, but could not take any kind of vehicle or dreadnought other than Space Marine Bikes. I simply had to play around the weak point in my force, with squad meltaguns and Long Fangs with tank-killing weapons, and out-maneuvering any enemy vehicles. It was part of the army's character and challenge- not just a reason to throw some Eldar warwalkers in to vehicle-hunt.
9078
Post by: grumpusbumpus
Personally, I think the allies rules were merely an unapologetic move by GW to sell more miniatures. I think the aesthetic component of this hobby is its best part at the moment, and while, in some cases, folks have used the allies rules to make for interesting and fluffy armies, in most cases I feel that visual and fluff aesthetic is tossed to the wind in order to make more competitive army builds using the allies rules.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
kronk wrote:I like it.
I like to paint and model, but why would I buy any Tau or Eldar if I'm only interested in about 500-750 points worth of stuff. My group plays 1500 to 2000 point games.
Now I can ally them in and justify my purchases. Brilliant model selling move, honestly.
Gotta agree with the man with the cowbell here. Gives me something to do/gives me an excuse to start small detachments if I want to. Also lets me compensate for the loss of inducted troops rules in the current SoB codex, which is where some of our heavier teeth came from.
74452
Post by: megasharpie100
It depends on how you use it and what you ca do. The fluff also counts I mainly play tau but the thought of a riptide with a wraithknight was to much to handle
53613
Post by: Florintine Mallorean
I am not a huge fan of allies overall but I like some of the things you could do with them. As pointed out before it's nice to be able to use a small force of models you had bought to paint because you liked them but didnt want to make a full army of them. I am not a huge fan of using them to fill in the holes of your army as I see those for the most part as "balances". Allies also make me feel like team games are a little less cool as it was fun to get a bunch of the guys at the store to do 2v2s and 3v3s. Now I feel that why should I team up with my friend when I can just ally with something better.
Idk much about the new Eldar codex yet but my goal with the old one was to make a fun list of Eldar and Dark Eldar units that I liked the look of. Mainly the goal was to make a fun not competitive assault army. Never got around to it but maybe still later on I will.
44749
Post by: Skriker
General Annoyance wrote:also orks only like ork teef, so paying them to their standards isn't too easy....
but to the original point, while the matrix and allies have some rough edges, there are points where you see it makes sense. after all, in a galaxy of war and strife, with unspeakable and unbearable forces on your doorstep, unlikely alliances are going to have to be made....
GA
It is easy to pay ork mercenaries.
Step 1: Hire ork freebooterz
Step 2: Send them in as an orkie wave to soften up objectives
Step 3: Send penal troopers out to pull teeth from all dead orks from orkie wave
Step 4: Pay remaining freebooterz
See all simple.
Or the easier way:
Step 1 and 2 as above
Step 3: Shoot any surviving orks from the orkie wave in the back as your real forces move in to claim objective
Step 4: No orks to pay since they are all dead
Skriker
69938
Post by: General Annoyance
Skriker wrote:General Annoyance wrote:also orks only like ork teef, so paying them to their standards isn't too easy....
but to the original point, while the matrix and allies have some rough edges, there are points where you see it makes sense. after all, in a galaxy of war and strife, with unspeakable and unbearable forces on your doorstep, unlikely alliances are going to have to be made....
GA
It is easy to pay ork mercenaries.
Step 1: Hire ork freebooterz
Step 2: Send them in as an orkie wave to soften up objectives
Step 3: Send penal troopers out to pull teeth from all dead orks from orkie wave
Step 4: Pay remaining freebooterz
See all simple.
Or the easier way:
Step 1 and 2 as above
Step 3: Shoot any surviving orks from the orkie wave in the back as your real forces move in to claim objective
Step 4: No orks to pay since they are all dead
Skriker
perhaps, but they may be a little more cunnin' than that....
GA
65757
Post by: PredaKhaine
Skriker wrote:General Annoyance wrote:also orks only like ork teef, so paying them to their standards isn't too easy.... but to the original point, while the matrix and allies have some rough edges, there are points where you see it makes sense. after all, in a galaxy of war and strife, with unspeakable and unbearable forces on your doorstep, unlikely alliances are going to have to be made.... GA It is easy to pay ork mercenaries. Step 1: Hire ork freebooterz Step 2: Send them in as an orkie wave to soften up objectives Step 3: Send penal troopers out to pull teeth from all dead orks from orkie wave Step 4: Pay remaining freebooterz See all simple.  Now steal all their teeth and hire more
51194
Post by: meh_
No. You are totally paranoid.
|
|