I'm getting quite tired of the Allies and their addition in the 6th ed rules. It seems all you get is best of two books, min maxed, with the maximum cheesed out shenanigans possible. I long for the good old days of mono on mono army's battling it out. I fear with the addition of escalation and dataslates things will get only worse. How do you feel.?
I like the concept of Allies, but not what it allows some players to do. Also, I don't plan to add any allies to my forces, I prefer playing mono-army (even though I'm CSM). Unless allying regular CSM with Black Legion.
If my group min-maxed, I'd probably agree with you.
We don't though. We're mostly puritan mono-army players. And from our perspective it just gives us some interesting aesthetical options for our armies.
I'm building a small frateris militia for my sisters that's eventually gonna be used as a counts-as IG allies, for example.
Firstly, your topic title does not reflect your poll. "Have the screwed it up" is not the same as "was it a good addition".
To answer your threat title question, no. Everyone has access, so it is not a selective "this faction now autowins" thing. They HAVE changed how the game is played, as with all rule changes. That may make it less enjoyable for some, and more for others, but it does not "screw up" the game any more than changing from 5th to 6th in general does.
While it does allow for fluffy armies, which often do not work thanks to the battle brother, untrustworthy ally thing, for example Tyrannids and Guard should be a no brainer with genestealer cult types of things on the same token as chaos and chaos cultists, but unfortunately most players I have run into do it totally for the advantages of shoring up the weak points in their armies and since anyone with half a brain cell can spout some made up fluff reason as to why the two factions are working together I say yes, it has screwed up the game.
Now I will not play in tournies since I cant pick my opponents and will only play and play against mono-armies.
It's a good idea in theory but GW massively bungled it up. A codex should never be able to ally with itself regardless of build. That just gives you more FOC slots and is unfair to other armies like Orks or Tyranids.
Only problem I have with the allies system is that there is no conherency to it. Some armies get pair ups that make zero sense in the fluff, but then other armies are screwed out of allies because of fluff. Some matchups and their levels make zero sense. Absolutely stupid that ANY space marine chapter would ally with ANY xenos force at a level higher than they would ally with another space marine chapter. Just no sense to that at all.
Overall some armies get awesome pairings that can be heavily abused, while others get OK, but still useful pairings and still others get lousy pairings or allied levels that limit the impact the pair has. As for 'Nids and IG, as someone who's first army was a genestealer cult army, that would be interesting if you could ally *genestealers* to an IG army, but once the entire Tyranid swarm arrives the cult becomes just more fodder like the rest of the planet's inhabitants and resources so they would not fight together in a battle because the 'nids would eat them just as readily as the enemy in such an instance. Once the hive fleet arrives there is nothing special about the human parts of the cult anymore. Their only job is to help propogate the cult until they spawn a greater genestealer which then sends that psychic beacon out towards the hive fleet to draw it in. They cause havoc as the hive fleet gets closer, but once the hive fleet is there they have no special protections from the tyranid horde.
Just having allies isn't the problem. The problem is in the differing attitudes of players towards allies. There are those who ally for fluffy reasons and those who ally for extreme WAAC reasons and some in the middle. You need to find a group that approaches them the same way as you do to avoid headaches.
Allies are a fun idea in theory. That said it is also a easily broken idea by players. I said it more than once if they would have had allies take away FOC slots instead of add it would have stopped a lot of problems. If they would have done it like that you could have a Ultramarines/salamander alliance if you wanted and it would have been for story reasons not so you could have anouther HQ/troop/Elite/Fast/Heavy slot.
They can be good or bad I just wish GW had made the Allies Chart more realistic. I.E. Dark Angels don't really trust anyone ever they only get along with the Guard because the guard generally doesn't question what the DA tell them. Conversely Most space marines won't do the same. Also Necrons and Blood angels should not be battle brothers.
I like allies. What I would suggest would be to remove the battle brothers. The worst of the cheesy combos are when independent characters are allowed to join units of other armyies to create terrible combos that were simply not intended. For example the baron, seerbike councel.
The ability to expand your armies slowly, have your forces work together and all is fine, But I think even the closest of 'battle brothers would be too leary to actually join each other's squads.
If I'm perfectly honest I feel as if allies should be an optional rule.... I feel it's there just to shift more wraithknights/riptides/ csm dragons etc
I feel that allies, in theory, could have been made to work on some level. The way they are currently implemented now is awful, it's almost exclusively used to create unintended synergies or fill capability gaps that were intentionally created for balance reasons, with lots of armies that absolutely ruin any sort of immersion in the background.
It certainly doesn't help that the allies chart makes zero sense either from a fluff or balance perspective. Tau battle brothers with Space Marines? IG able to ally with Chaos Daemons? It feels like there's latitude for stuff like Chaos Cultists (e.g. IG allying with Chaos) but not for Genestealer Cults (IG cannot ally with Tyranids), and thus the compromises are very inconsistent.
Much of the bigger balance problems could be solved by simply removing the Battle Brothers benefits, but it's still a borked system overall.
They call them "Traitor Guard". There are Chaos-held systems that produce their own version of the Imperial Guard. Army Groups like the Blood Pact.
It should be noted that a Genestealer Cult is used to spawn an uprising before the Tyranid Fleet arrives. It is meant to weaken the planet's stability and defenses to make its consumption easier on the Fleet.
That said, the Genestealers are as much food as anything else on the planet, and old fluff indicates that they will often flee ahead of the forward edge of the Fleet, to avoid this fate (and, also, to seed a new planet), so it makes some fluff sense to not have a Genestealer Cult represented by Tyranid and IG allies, as within a Genestealer Cult you have only a very small range of bioforms available.
They call them "Traitor Guard". There are Chaos-held systems that produce their own version of the Imperial Guard. Army Groups like the Blood Pact.
It should be noted that a Genestealer Cult is used to spawn an uprising before the Tyranid Fleet arrives. It is meant to weaken the planet's stability and defenses to make its consumption easier on the Fleet.
That said, the Genestealers are as much food as anything else on the planet, and old fluff indicates that they will often flee ahead of the forward edge of the Fleet, to avoid this fate (and, also, to seed a new planet), so it makes some fluff sense to not have a Genestealer Cult represented by Tyranid and IG allies, as within a Genestealer Cult you have only a very small range of bioforms available.
I get that they were trying to do "traitor IG" here, I really really do, but my overall point was that they're oddly inconsistent about such things, you could make just as much justification for Genestealer cults as for IG operating alongside Daemons (as opposed to CSM), and many other such things. That said, ultimately this isn't expressed by GW in any way, they don't say "this is here to portray traitor IG", they just say that the standard, loyalist Imperial Guard can ally with Chaos, while it's utterly impossible for Tyranids, and Tau are somehow staunch Battle Brothers with all Codex Adherent Space Marine chapters
EVIL INC wrote: I like allies. What I would suggest would be to remove the battle brothers. The worst of the cheesy combos are when independent characters are allowed to join units of other armyies to create terrible combos that were simply not intended. For example the baron, seerbike councel.
The ability to expand your armies slowly, have your forces work together and all is fine, But I think even the closest of 'battle brothers would be too leary to actually join each other's squads.
This. Allies good, battle brothers bad.
Everyone with everyone, all at Allies of Convenience IMO
Edit: Also "I ally with (practically identical codex X) to get another force slot" is also bs
I have never been a fan of some armies being crap at dealing with some things while others (marines) get to be good at everything. Being able to pick from multiple lists is a nice quick-fix and makes choosing an army more a question of what I want to do than what my forces are good at. If I want to play shooty orks, I'm not forced to accept that I just won't be able to handle tough vehicles; I can take some Tau or Imp Guard to deal with them. When I play Tau, I no longer have to rely of utterly destroying all resistance before advancing on objectives; I can take orks or space marines to close with the enemy.
Sure, some overpowered (or, more often, over-hyped) units become more available, but I'm far from convinced that is a bad thing. If there are going to be unbalanced units in the game, surely it's better that they are available to many forces rather than just the most recently updated guys?
Now, I do think that the implementation could have been a lot better. Some forces seem to have access to much better options than others and the level of background justification is all over the place, as many others in this thread have noted.
Overall though, I think they make the game better than it would be without them.
Conceptually, it's fun. In practice it fails. In terms of comeptitives, I think it holds no worth. Every army has its pros and cons. Bringing units, as Kilkrazy mentioned, that shore that up or bringing things that doulbe your might just simply don't work in a fair and proper way. Along with that, by providing imbalanced favors (Nids have no allies, Chaos tend to have mediocre at best alliances, Imperium gets all da bling) certain armies over others.
In terms of just for fun, it works... but it already worked. In 5th edition, I played casual and most of the time it would be like yo we got a Nid player, a CSM player, and two imperial players. Ummmm Imperial vs everything else. Not fluffy but it happened. Along with that, sometimes you would have somebody be like "Can I bring daemons to use with my CSM army to represent my Word Bearers?" and the response was a "alright". Simply put, player consent can do magical things
I disagree with the premise of the poll. GW hasn't screwed up the game with any one single event, they are in the middle of a constant process of screwing up the game. Are allies bad? Sure. But can you really point to them as the single defining event, rather than Revenant titans in normal 40k, or the idiotic IGOUGO turn structure, or microtransaction "books", or any of countless other terrible decisions?
Fixed that for you. Allies made it so varying Space Marine chapters could work together to accomplish a goal, or CSM and Daemons could be united under a patron god. It also gave us Taudar, Space Marines brofisting Tau, and Black Templars preferring to work with Eldar (Xenos!!) over Sisters of Battle. The system was made poorly, although the idea could have been grand. As such, I pretty much see it as a joke.
Allies are good. It's just battle brothers which is broken, causing a lot of the stupid combos in this game. Personally, I'd downgrade BB allies to Allies of Convenience.
IMO they implemented it poorly. Battlebrothers shouldn't be default, but it should be reserved for a few combinations where it's relevant (Eldar/DE for eg.) Most combos (SM/IG etc) should be Allies of Convenience. That's an accurate title and more accurately reflects what happens when these forces fight together (Ie - marines keep largely to themselves, they don't take a guard platoon each to lead)
I think allies should have been limited to just something like the Formations instead. There's a great fluffy answer to it as well, Tau support the Eldar and sent a small unit of firewarriors with stealth suits to aid them. Make the Formations 0-1 and use the current ally chart.
There would still be some really good combos probably, but it would be a lot more limited and controlled. And certainly better than allowing both.
Bronzefists42 wrote: There are certain ridiculousness to it. *COUGH* ORK/ NECRON ARMIES*COUGH* but it give a bit more freedom to players with structuring their army.
I run a list of Necrons with an allied detachment of Orks sometimes. But this was all started because of a campaign idea an Ork player came up with where my Necron army imprisoned a bunch of his Orks and infested them with scarabs.
I sorta like the idea of the allied list, but agree with the consensus here that the chart is non-sensical. To me, it seems like a transparent ploy to give you a reason to start collecting a new army.
I sorta like the idea of the allied list, but agree with the consensus here that the chart is non-sensical. To me, it seems like a transparent ploy to give you a reason to start collecting a new army.
It's like boredom and nerfhammer isn't enough for GW.
Mr Morden wrote: Great idea - poor execution in terms of how and who allies with whom
This.
Some allies make a lot of sense. Certain armies fight together frequently; IG can easily be used as proxy PDFs, private armies, traitors, conscripts, frateris militia (sp?), allied with marines as the imperial army, etc. so I'm really happy to see additions like that, which allow some pretty fun fluff lists representing different forces using a mix & match principle.
However, I think they should have been way more restrictive so you don't just wind up with a bunch of mix & match BS that's pretty clearly based on performance more than aesthetic or fun. They already had Apocalypse for "do whatever you want."
I like it, since FW allows mixing all their armies with everything, I can ally the Siege Regiment with the Assault Brigade list and field all my favorite units.
I don't actually have an issue with Allies, the Allies Matrix, or Battle Brothers. What I do have an issue with, what I feel is the mechanic that us breaking the game, is that Allies take up a separate detachment from the primary FoC. If we were limit to a single FoC per army regardless of the number of factions represented, everyone would have a balanced experience with the game. At the moment, you can legally have four radically different factions in the same army, each with its own FoC: Marine or IG primary, Chaos allies, Inquisitors, and a Tau firebase. Now add in fortifications and a superheavy. Now add a second Primary, second Allies, etc.
Might as well play all games as Apocalypse, seeing as GW is throwing away their FoC.
jeffersonian000 wrote: I don't actually have an issue with Allies, the Allies Matrix, or Battle Brothers. What I do have an issue with, what I feel is the mechanic that us breaking the game, is that Allies take up a separate detachment from the primary FoC. If we were limit to a single FoC per army regardless of the number of factions represented, everyone would have a balanced experience with the game. At the moment, you can legally have four radically different factions in the same army, each with its own FoC: Marine or IG primary, Chaos allies, Inquisitors, and a Tau firebase. Now add in fortifications and a superheavy. Now add a second Primary, second Allies, etc.
Might as well play all games as Apocalypse, seeing as GW is throwing away their FoC.
SJ
QFT.
At <1000 points you can have four heavy support slots, and four FA slots, if you only take the primary and one ally.
Both of which my meta is seeing heavy spam in.
Some allies were flirted with as mentioned with "Lost and Damned", Armageddon, Inquisition so it is formalized and everyone gets a shot.
There is more complexity to army selection for those min/max players, it is sufficiently complex that there is no auto-win combo that has emerged yet.
For those who like their fluff, it is a godsend.
For GW more models sold = win, win, epic win.
GW does not host tournaments so as they like to say: it is our "problem" to agree to how tournaments or "friendly" games are conducted, they are out of it as far as they are concerned (even though they still write the rules we must abide by but we can change with a roll off of the dice.)
Some allies were flirted with as mentioned with "Lost and Damned", Armageddon, Inquisition so it is formalized and everyone gets a shot.
Chaos Space Marines and Imperial Guard are not battle brothers: The Lost and the Damned are still missing. And so are the Genestealer Cults.
There is more complexity to army selection for those min/max players, it is sufficiently complex that there is no auto-win combo that has emerged yet.
Aside from Tau+Eldar, Tau+Tau and a few more. There are a few auto-win combos compiting. Good luck trying to play with a casual list.
For those who like their fluff, it is a godsend.
NO WAY.
It is a nightmare!! Everywhere you see Tau being battle brothers with Space Marines, Orks and Necrons, Blood Angels and Necrons, Necrons and Grey Knights, Eldar and Dark Eldar, Tau and Eldar... it goes against anything who has been written before. Why should the Kroot be encouraged by the words of a Chaplain?
For GW more models sold = win, win, epic win.
GW does not host tournaments so as they like to say: it is our "problem" to agree to how tournaments or "friendly" games are conducted, they are out of it as far as they are concerned (even though they still write the rules we must abide by but we can change with a roll off of the dice.)
Though, I do agree with the first part of this. I like allies on how people can use less competitive codex's and keep up. But some of the parts of the ally matrix really doesn't make sense.
Some allies were flirted with as mentioned with "Lost and Damned", Armageddon, Inquisition so it is formalized and everyone gets a shot.
Chaos Space Marines and Imperial Guard are not battle brothers: The Lost and the Damned are still missing. And so are the Genestealer Cults.
There is more complexity to army selection for those min/max players, it is sufficiently complex that there is no auto-win combo that has emerged yet.
Aside from Tau+Eldar, Tau+Tau and a few more. There are a few auto-win combos compiting. Good luck trying to play with a casual list.
For those who like their fluff, it is a godsend.
NO WAY.
It is a nightmare!! Everywhere you see Tau being battle brothers with Space Marines, Orks and Necrons, Blood Angels and Necrons, Necrons and Grey Knights, Eldar and Dark Eldar, Tau and Eldar... it goes against anything who has been written before. Why should the Kroot be encouraged by the words of a Chaplain?
For GW more models sold = win, win, epic win.
GW does not host tournaments so as they like to say: it is our "problem" to agree to how tournaments or "friendly" games are conducted, they are out of it as far as they are concerned (even though they still write the rules we must abide by but we can change with a roll off of the dice.)
This part I agrre with.
Ah, you have chosen the cup half empty view.
The mistake people make is thinking 40k is a competitive game for serious play, it boils down to rock-paper-scissors army lists.
A win becomes pretty arbitrary where the army list can be more important than the skill of the general.
The larger combinations of army choice just makes the skill of the player all the less important.
Just sit back and relax, just like in the "real" 40k universe: anything you do really does not matter in the scheme of things...
oooh edgy
Though, I do agree with the first part of this. I like allies on how people can use less competitive codex's and keep up. But some of the parts of the ally matrix really doesn't make sense.
I play Black Templar.
Fluff has Sisters of Battle team ups quite a few times.
Not battle brothers: huh?
That team-up of angry knights and even more angry nuns would look epic on the table.
It could only be improved with space pirates, ninjas and large sharks with lasers.
Would love to be a fly on the wall when they made the allies matrix, I suspect it was largely figured out in Bugman's bar.
The mistake people make is thinking 40k is a competitive game for serious play, it boils down to rock-paper-scissors army lists.
Translation: GW is incapable of making anything other than a small number of lists in an even smaller numbre of armies.
It's not designed for competitive play - it's designed, by GW's own admittance, to help sell models.
Really, the best way to go is to not bother with GW's ruleset.
But I think the Ally char needs to be altered in some ways. to better reflect certain things. (( IG being battle brothers with Tau, to represent Gue'vasa for example ))
I like allies a lot. All of the battle brothers are cool, but that is where the awesome stops. Some allies of convenience are just wrong IMO. Necrons and Grey knights, why? Marines being any level of allies with anything but imperium, eldar and Tau. Even desperate allies, orks and SW just doesn't sit well in my book.
Thinks like Chaos daemons and Chaos space marines opens up a lot for fluffy fun lists, as does IG and marines. Tau/Eldar opens up your opponents 5th gate to hell as he pulls you into the ever expanding abyss known as his hatred.
I only see allies for 2 reasons though. WAAC, and fluff. I never see allies in random pick up games. Either my opponent explains this fun army, or my opponent says it is tournament practice.
Originally, I was very anti allies, mostly because it rode all over the fluff. However in my gaming group we always try to have fluffy matchups so have never come across any of the dumber pairings. Plus, since Codex Inquisition dropped, my Sisters are massive fans
gossipmeng wrote: I like when allies are used for fluffy purposes. I don't like when allies are used purely to win games.
Precisely how I feel. I love nothing more than a fluffy army, but people who use these rules to gain access to things that are likely intentionally not available for a mono-army is silly.
I simply can't bring myself to Ally because it makes no sense for Orks to ally with anyone except more Orks.
I simply can't bring myself to Ally because it makes no sense for Orks to ally with anyone except more Orks.
Well.... if you tilt your head and squint a bit, you could maybe see Blood Axe Orks being hired as mercenaries to augment a sad sack PDF army (represented by IG on the table)... that would be one explanation of Orks allying with something other than Orks. Of course, that's pretty much the only one I can think of.
Though it absolutely makes me want to spew when I see Necron+GK armies or Tau+Space Marines (I don't care how diplomatic the Ultramarines are they should not be Battle Brothers) I think that the ability to field my Guard with my Marines and vice versa has been really fun, fluffy and interesting to do.
I honestly don't have much of a problem with allies. Sure, GW screwed up the execution with the nonsensical allies chart, and I agree with other posters in this thread that the chart ought be dumped and all factions treated as allies of convenience, which would simultaneously rid most of the abuses and eliminate the ally chart losers such as the Tyranids. That being said, this game has far, far worse problems then allies. A lot of the really nasty and abusive armies out there, such as jetseer councils, screamerstar, FMC spam, waveserpent spam, necron airforce, triple heldrake, etc. don't require allies at all, and by far the worst armies I have played against or even seen on the tabletop were monobuild. I myself have tried to create some interesting ally combos, but having to add in a HQ plus and troop in addition to what you want to buy (such as a Vendetta) tends to get in the way of making an effective list.
Not to mention allies currently does serve as a patch of sorts for the awful external balance of this game. Some armies such as Orkz can't tackle heavy armor effectively, while others, such as Space Wolves, can't do much of anything against aircraft. This isn't a defining weakness of the armies, because there is nothing a player of one of these armies can do about these weaknesses other than not play against heavy armor spam or flyer/FMC spam armies. They either pack up, or they include allies/formations/fortifications so they can actually hurt the opponents units. It is an awfully rubbish way to fix the problem, but until GW learns how to write balanced codices, it is the only way to deal with the problem.
As far as butchering fluff is concerned, fluff has been butchered since I started playing 40k (which is 6 years ago). I remember when ever Tyranid army was nothing by MCs with a few genestealers thrown in the satisfy the force org requirements. Chaos players constantly mixed opposing gods. Every IG army consisted of veterans in chimera. Some Ork boyz thrown in with Necrons isn't going to change that.
gossipmeng wrote: I like when allies are used for fluffy purposes. I don't like when allies are used purely to win games.
Precisely how I feel. I love nothing more than a fluffy army, but people who use these rules to gain access to things that are likely intentionally not available for a mono-army is silly.
I simply can't bring myself to Ally because it makes no sense for Orks to ally with anyone except more Orks.
Forgeworld allows this, that's how I use allies right now.
I simply can't bring myself to Ally because it makes no sense for Orks to ally with anyone except more Orks.
Well.... if you tilt your head and squint a bit, you could maybe see Blood Axe Orks being hired as mercenaries to augment a sad sack PDF army (represented by IG on the table)... that would be one explanation of Orks allying with something other than Orks. Of course, that's pretty much the only one I can think of.
It would need to be dire circumstances but yes, I suppose it is possible, though the general urge for bloodshed would be too much for Orks to remain in control I think.
My mate was playing Dark Heresy once and had a temporary alliance with an Ork Freebooter Warboss, because they offered him a larger hat. This seems like one of the few plausible scenarios I can imagine an Ork really wanting to ally.
Personally I think it was an interesting idea, but poorly executed. The allies table really needs tweaking when you have things like tau being BB with spacemarines (what happened to purge the xenos?) not with IG (what happened to gue'vessa?).
I find it highly unlikely that Blood Angels would be more likely to team up with Necron than Dark Angels would be to team up with the Space Wolves. Or even more ridiculous is that every single marine chapter covered in C:SM would be more likely to team up with tau than space wolves/Dark Angels.
I simply can't bring myself to Ally because it makes no sense for Orks to ally with anyone except more Orks.
Well.... if you tilt your head and squint a bit, you could maybe see Blood Axe Orks being hired as mercenaries to augment a sad sack PDF army (represented by IG on the table)... that would be one explanation of Orks allying with something other than Orks. Of course, that's pretty much the only one I can think of.
I have Ork zombie slaves.
So far, they''re just cut up and repainted Ork boys playing as CSM zombies, but it could extend to mind parasites in a living Ork.
It's good in terms of - you can recreate some of the battles from the fluff, such as 80% imperial guard 20% marines taking on chaos etc.
but it usually works like everyone says, people take the cheesiet from each list!
Wehn we play, we play larger games, usually 6k per side, (we usually play apocalypse), but we play the allies matrix, rather than "play whatever you like" - this starts to get daft, and limit the allies to maximum 25% of the list
Talking about Allies makes me want to ally some IG to my SW to represent some Aettguard, or maybe even the crew of one of their ships. That's fluffy. Soooo.... Why can't SoB ally wit BT as battle brothers??? Some of the matrix makes sense, while others (I'm looking at you SM and Tau) are just ridonkulous...
I still hate allies, but in response to the Ork guy, Blood Axe orks will ally with IG. There is fluff mentioning after battles with orks, IG commanders would have their troops scour the field collecting teeth to pay Blood Axe mercs with. The BA after all are trying to emulate the IG with their own orky style. That's actually one of the few non-Imperial/imperial team ups that make sense.
The basic theory behind allies is cool, but the implementation by 90% of players is not. To most players allies are just a way around the weaknesses of a Codex, by adding all that stuff from another army, rather than the basis for a really cool army theme.
AegisGrimm wrote: The basic theory behind allies is cool, but the implementation by 90% of players is not. To most players allies are just a way around the weaknesses of a Codex, by adding all that stuff from another army, rather than the basis for a really cool army theme.
The wonky allies matrix hurts that too. When I first heard of allies, I was exited because I thought of making a fluffy tau list with IG (gue'vessa) allies, but for some reason the tau are AoC with IG. I then found out that they were BBs with SM. Dammit GW...
I don't think that the Allies system is good or bad on its own, so I voted for 'middle'. There are a lot of pairs one can justify with fluff, so I'm not going to touch the 'what makes fluff sense' aspect of the Allies rules. When it comes to game mechanics, however, the problem isn't anything unique to the much-maligned Allies Chart, but rather a problem inherent in the the game as it stands: imbalance. If the game were properly balanced for the allies system then all mono-builds and all allies builds would be equally viable. In this ideal image of the game BA/SoB should be evenly matched with Tau/'Dar...which is not at all the case. At the same time, BA/SoB (using the 'advantage' of having the allied force org) is still going to get roflstomped by mono-Eldar, as are mono-BA and mono-SoB (this is assuming cutthroat competitive play).
I don't think the Allies rules themselves are the cause of the most the problems they're blamed for, but as things stand I also don't think they're helping either. I would prefer a no allies and a balanced game over an imbalanced game that included allies...but in the case of a severely imbalanced game with no allies versus one with them...might as well go for the extra options.
I love the concept. It allows great conversions such as Imperial guard style riptides or chaos Imperial guard, but the allies chart I think was done in a pub by throwing darts while drunk. When you get Space Marines more willing to ally with xenos than Sisters of Battle, something is wrong. Very wrong. I voted 'for' though because it allows people to buy a few units of a new army and test them out on the table and for conversion possibilities.
A number of the negative pairings (like Marines and Sisters not really liking each other and DA/SW not liking each other) are fine, the problem is just the weird ones like all the aliens that get along with imperials because they did in one story ever
Imperial Guard, pretty much battle brothers with everyone except Eldar/Dark Eldar. That reflects Tyranid cults, Chaos cults, Tau auxiliaries, and of course good loyal servants of the Emperor. They could be allies of convenience with Eldar, and desperate allies with Dark Eldar.
Sisters of Battle, battle brothers with all Imperial Forces. Come the Apocalypse with anything Chaos or Dark Eldar, desperate allies with any other Xenos force.
Orks fight with anyone, but don't respect anyone. They'd be allies of convenience with all other forces. Good Orky motto, the enemy of my enemy dies second.
Necrons again should be allies of convenience with most other armies (including Tyranids, no biomatter, no reason for the Hive Mind to eat them). They'd be desperate allies with Dark Eldar, and CtA with Chaos Daemons (abominations from the warp) and Eldar (if the whole war in heaven thing is still in play).
Space Marines, all Space Marines are battle brothers except Dark Angels and Space Wolves who are allies of convenience.
Inquisition (except Grey Knights), battle brothers with all imperial forces and (this might be controversial) Chaos representing Radical Inquisitors who think they can use Chaos to fight Chaos.
Grey Knights, allies of convenience with all Imperial forces, desperate allies with all Xenos. CtA with anything Chaotic.
I usually don't mind. It's already easy to be OP with spammable units of different books (Serpent, Riptide, Heldrake). Adding allies will rarely make that much of a difference if you choose to go all-out competitiveness.
On the other hand, it can be used into firing armies' weakness, which can make the game more balanced.
Overall, I'm fine with them. But what really pisses me off is seeing some idiotic alliances. I know, I know. The game isn't only about the fluff. But when I see IG & Daemons vs. BT & Chaos... Just... No.
Imperial Guard, pretty much battle brothers with everyone except Eldar/Dark Eldar. That reflects Tyranid cults, Chaos cults, Tau auxiliaries, and of course good loyal servants of the Emperor. They could be allies of convenience with Eldar, and desperate allies with Dark Eldar.
Sisters of Battle, battle brothers with all Imperial Forces. Come the Apocalypse with anything Chaos or Dark Eldar, desperate allies with any other Xenos force.
Orks fight with anyone, but don't respect anyone. They'd be allies of convenience with all other forces. Good Orky motto, the enemy of my enemy dies second.
Necrons again should be allies of convenience with most other armies (including Tyranids, no biomatter, no reason for the Hive Mind to eat them). They'd be desperate allies with Dark Eldar, and CtA with Chaos Daemons (abominations from the warp) and Eldar (if the whole war in heaven thing is still in play).
Space Marines, all Space Marines are battle brothers except Dark Angels and Space Wolves who are allies of convenience.
Inquisition (except Grey Knights), battle brothers with all imperial forces and (this might be controversial) Chaos representing Radical Inquisitors who think they can use Chaos to fight Chaos.
Grey Knights, allies of convenience with all Imperial forces, desperate allies with all Xenos. CtA with anything Chaotic.
Those are some pretty Imperial focused proposals. Eldar have no Battle Brothers?
Honestly, from what I've read I'm torn. I like the idea of allies when it makes thematic sense for a scenario/campaign, and it's a neat way to start a smaller, secondary army that you branch out later with.
I strongly dislike the idea of just taking the best parts of two armies to have some min/maxed uber list with almost no disadvantages, and I'm a little disgusted that they are encouraging this sort of behavior when I fondly recall old White Dwarf articles about how bad it is to be "cheesy" or "beardy" versus playing in the spirit of the game.
Imperial Guard, pretty much battle brothers with everyone except Eldar/Dark Eldar. That reflects Tyranid cults, Chaos cults, Tau auxiliaries, and of course good loyal servants of the Emperor. They could be allies of convenience with Eldar, and desperate allies with Dark Eldar.
Sisters of Battle, battle brothers with all Imperial Forces. Come the Apocalypse with anything Chaos or Dark Eldar, desperate allies with any other Xenos force.
Orks fight with anyone, but don't respect anyone. They'd be allies of convenience with all other forces. Good Orky motto, the enemy of my enemy dies second.
Necrons again should be allies of convenience with most other armies (including Tyranids, no biomatter, no reason for the Hive Mind to eat them). They'd be desperate allies with Dark Eldar, and CtA with Chaos Daemons (abominations from the warp) and Eldar (if the whole war in heaven thing is still in play).
Space Marines, all Space Marines are battle brothers except Dark Angels and Space Wolves who are allies of convenience.
Inquisition (except Grey Knights), battle brothers with all imperial forces and (this might be controversial) Chaos representing Radical Inquisitors who think they can use Chaos to fight Chaos.
Grey Knights, allies of convenience with all Imperial forces, desperate allies with all Xenos. CtA with anything Chaotic.
Those are some pretty Imperial focused proposals. Eldar have no Battle Brothers?
I think this is all pretty accurate - re the question who could the Eldar be battle brothers with rather than Allies of Convenience at best?
Imperial - nope,
Orks - nope,
Tryanids - nope,
Necrons - nope,
Chaos - nope,
Tau - maybe - there is pretty much zero contact in the older fluff - I don't have the newer Tau codexes to confirm if there is any actual contact between them?
Dark Eldar - maybe but more likely Allies of Convenience
I think it's a great idea, but like others have said, it's not been executed well.
I'd completely cut out battle brothers and make the majority of factions distrust one another. There needs to be a risk to balance out the reward of covering your weaknesses, at the moment there are massive benefits but next to no drawbacks.
Gorechild wrote: I think it's a great idea, but like others have said, it's not been executed well.
I'd completely cut out battle brothers and make the majority of factions distrust one another. There needs to be a risk to balance out the reward of covering your weaknesses, at the moment there are massive benefits but next to no drawbacks.
Then Daemons needs to return to chaos, they SHOULD be battle brothers. (And without all those friggen restrictions)
Very true. The "battle brothers" is what makes it bad. It allows to much in the way of shenanigans and unintended combos. it also just doesn't make sense anyway. Even the closes of forces will not trust one another to that degree.
soomemafia wrote: I usually don't mind. It's already easy to be OP with spammable units of different books (Serpent, Riptide, Heldrake). Adding allies will rarely make that much of a difference if you choose to go all-out competitiveness.
On the other hand, it can be used into firing armies' weakness, which can make the game more balanced.
Overall, I'm fine with them. But what really pisses me off is seeing some idiotic alliances. I know, I know. The game isn't only about the fluff. But when I see IG & Daemons vs. BT & Chaos... Just... No.
I think the main thing I dislike about them is that everyone seems to run them, and it seems to be the best (only?) way to field a competitive army. That's not right; you should be striving to have a "pure" force unless you have some kind of theme going, for example an IG army with GK as an Inquisitor's retinue, or IG + Daemons/Chaos as a traitor guard regiment.
It seems really lame as what is basically an outsider looking in to see that the majority of armies include allies instead of having a strong cohesion.
The allies concept is a great one and is one of the best things GW has done for it's hobbyists for a long while. It allows you to dip you to into an army, without spending LOADS on it to see if you like it. I wanted to branch into Eldar from my DE, so when the allies rules came out I was straight on in! I wouldn't of been able to start eldar without this rule, because would have to have 2 troops before I could get to the units I like (Warp Spiders being the main one). It's not allies that are the problem, its people. GW didn't make the rules with the intention o allowing 5 riptides, its the people of the game LOOKING for these broken combo's that gives allies a bad name.
Imperial Guard, pretty much battle brothers with everyone except Eldar/Dark Eldar. That reflects Tyranid cults, Chaos cults, Tau auxiliaries, and of course good loyal servants of the Emperor. They could be allies of convenience with Eldar, and desperate allies with Dark Eldar.
Sisters of Battle, battle brothers with all Imperial Forces. Come the Apocalypse with anything Chaos or Dark Eldar, desperate allies with any other Xenos force.
Orks fight with anyone, but don't respect anyone. They'd be allies of convenience with all other forces. Good Orky motto, the enemy of my enemy dies second.
Necrons again should be allies of convenience with most other armies (including Tyranids, no biomatter, no reason for the Hive Mind to eat them). They'd be desperate allies with Dark Eldar, and CtA with Chaos Daemons (abominations from the warp) and Eldar (if the whole war in heaven thing is still in play).
Space Marines, all Space Marines are battle brothers except Dark Angels and Space Wolves who are allies of convenience.
Inquisition (except Grey Knights), battle brothers with all imperial forces and (this might be controversial) Chaos representing Radical Inquisitors who think they can use Chaos to fight Chaos.
Grey Knights, allies of convenience with all Imperial forces, desperate allies with all Xenos. CtA with anything Chaotic.
Those are some pretty Imperial focused proposals. Eldar have no Battle Brothers?
Sorry, got called away before I could finish them.
I knocked up a PDF file showing what I thought the allies matrix should look like. I've probably forgotten something.
Imperial Guard, pretty much battle brothers with everyone except Eldar/Dark Eldar. That reflects Tyranid cults, Chaos cults, Tau auxiliaries, and of course good loyal servants of the Emperor. They could be allies of convenience with Eldar, and desperate allies with Dark Eldar.
Sisters of Battle, battle brothers with all Imperial Forces. Come the Apocalypse with anything Chaos or Dark Eldar, desperate allies with any other Xenos force.
Orks fight with anyone, but don't respect anyone. They'd be allies of convenience with all other forces. Good Orky motto, the enemy of my enemy dies second.
Necrons again should be allies of convenience with most other armies (including Tyranids, no biomatter, no reason for the Hive Mind to eat them). They'd be desperate allies with Dark Eldar, and CtA with Chaos Daemons (abominations from the warp) and Eldar (if the whole war in heaven thing is still in play).
Space Marines, all Space Marines are battle brothers except Dark Angels and Space Wolves who are allies of convenience.
Inquisition (except Grey Knights), battle brothers with all imperial forces and (this might be controversial) Chaos representing Radical Inquisitors who think they can use Chaos to fight Chaos.
Grey Knights, allies of convenience with all Imperial forces, desperate allies with all Xenos. CtA with anything Chaotic.
Those are some pretty Imperial focused proposals. Eldar have no Battle Brothers?
Sorry, got called away before I could finish them.
I knocked up a PDF file showing what I thought the allies matrix should look like. I've probably forgotten something.
I haven't checked all of it, but CD and CSM look utterly perfect to me
Werewalrus wrote: How about limiting the allied force organization to just troops and a HQ? This would get rid of some of the more cheesy combos.
Yeah, but then CSM get the rough end of the stick, again.
And Orks.
And... anyone who likes fluff more than combos.
Soulgrinder me please!
If it was restricted, you will still have a solid base for your second army...actually...the minimum requirement. Perhaps an additional requirement would make sense too...if you have multiple hq choices, you can't take the best one available. For example, for Tau, you couldn't take a Shas'o in a crisis suit, but you could take a Cadre Fireblade. Why would a commander, who could field an army of their own, put themselves under the influence of another?
Werewalrus wrote: How about limiting the allied force organization to just troops and a HQ? This would get rid of some of the more cheesy combos.
Yeah, but then CSM get the rough end of the stick, again.
And Orks.
And... anyone who likes fluff more than combos.
Soulgrinder me please!
If it was restricted, you will still have a solid base for your second army...actually...the minimum requirement. Perhaps an additional requirement would make sense too...if you have multiple hq choices, you can't take the best one available. For example, for Tau, you couldn't take a Shas'o in a crisis suit, but you could take a Cadre Fireblade. Why would a commander, who could field an army of their own, put themselves under the influence of another?
Tag team buddies?
I have a DP and a CL (who takes the rules of Typhus) operate together because their fluff has them doing so.
It's entirely possible that the two leaders got knocked together on the same mission, and got into a situation so bad they had to work together. Or they're just good mates looking for a brawl.
I haven't checked all of it, but CD and CSM look utterly perfect to me
Thanks. I also gave Tyranids some allies, generally in the desperate category, because whilst nobody likes Tyranids daemons aren't particularly concerned about being eaten, and Chaos Marines rely on not being there once the killing is over. Orks just don't give a damn as long as there's a good fight. Eldar and Dark Eldar are just manipulating the Hive Mind to guide it in a direction away from their own homeworlds, or perhaps because the Dark Eldar just want to watch the universe burn.
Imperial Guard are willing to go with pretty much anyone of course, except Dark Eldar, they're scary, and Eldar, because they're snooty.
Imperial Guard, pretty much battle brothers with everyone except Eldar/Dark Eldar. That reflects Tyranid cults, Chaos cults, Tau auxiliaries, and of course good loyal servants of the Emperor. They could be allies of convenience with Eldar, and desperate allies with Dark Eldar.
Sisters of Battle, battle brothers with all Imperial Forces. Come the Apocalypse with anything Chaos or Dark Eldar, desperate allies with any other Xenos force.
Orks fight with anyone, but don't respect anyone. They'd be allies of convenience with all other forces. Good Orky motto, the enemy of my enemy dies second.
Necrons again should be allies of convenience with most other armies (including Tyranids, no biomatter, no reason for the Hive Mind to eat them). They'd be desperate allies with Dark Eldar, and CtA with Chaos Daemons (abominations from the warp) and Eldar (if the whole war in heaven thing is still in play).
Space Marines, all Space Marines are battle brothers except Dark Angels and Space Wolves who are allies of convenience.
Inquisition (except Grey Knights), battle brothers with all imperial forces and (this might be controversial) Chaos representing Radical Inquisitors who think they can use Chaos to fight Chaos.
Grey Knights, allies of convenience with all Imperial forces, desperate allies with all Xenos. CtA with anything Chaotic.
Those are some pretty Imperial focused proposals. Eldar have no Battle Brothers?
Sorry, got called away before I could finish them.
I knocked up a PDF file showing what I thought the allies matrix should look like. I've probably forgotten something.
Tau would never be Battle Brothers with Orks. Since Orks have been proven that they will not be apart of the Greater Good to shoot them on site. Heck Farsight has lead countless campaigns against the Orks.
I haven't checked all of it, but CD and CSM look utterly perfect to me
Thanks. I also gave Tyranids some allies, generally in the desperate category, because whilst nobody likes Tyranids daemons aren't particularly concerned about being eaten, and Chaos Marines rely on not being there once the killing is over. Orks just don't give a damn as long as there's a good fight.
Imperial Guard are willing to go with pretty much anyone of course, except Dark Eldar, they're scary, and Eldar, because they're snooty.
The only problem with the matrix though, is the TauDar combo.
It's fluffy, but abusable. Fine with friends, though, as you can all agree not to be utter D-bags with it
Tau would never be Battle Brothers with Orks. Since Orks have been proven that they will not be apart of the Greater Good to shoot them on site. Heck Farsight has lead countless campaigns against the Orks.
"...If such rumours are to be believed (which must be done with natural caution) these Tau mercenaries have fought alongside Kroot (unsurprisingly), Tarellians, Human renegades, Eldar, the accursed Traitor Legions and even Orks..."
From the Commander Farsight entry in the 3rd ed. Tau codex.
Tau would never be Battle Brothers with Orks. Since Orks have been proven that they will not be apart of the Greater Good to shoot them on site. Heck Farsight has lead countless campaigns against the Orks.
"...If such rumours are to be believed (which must be done with natural caution) these Tau mercenaries have fought alongside Kroot (unsurprisingly), Tarellians, Human renegades, Eldar, the accursed Traitor Legions and even Orks..."
From the Commander Farsight entry in the 3rd ed. Tau codex.
Mercenaries are Allies of Convience not Battle Brothers. Also Farsight's fluff has been expanded upon since then. He currently still has Preferred Enemy: Orks, His supplement has Preferred Enemy Orks (Close Combat).
I haven't checked all of it, but CD and CSM look utterly perfect to me
Thanks. I also gave Tyranids some allies, generally in the desperate category, because whilst nobody likes Tyranids daemons aren't particularly concerned about being eaten, and Chaos Marines rely on not being there once the killing is over. Orks just don't give a damn as long as there's a good fight.
Imperial Guard are willing to go with pretty much anyone of course, except Dark Eldar, they're scary, and Eldar, because they're snooty.
The only problem with the matrix though, is the TauDar combo.
It's fluffy, but abusable. Fine with friends, though, as you can all agree not to be utter D-bags with it
Yes, unfortunately if I recall correctly even making them AoCs wouldn't fix that because it's the combination of units, not the units acting on each other, that creates that unholy synergy.
Making them DA would help, especially if it led to Tau pulse rifling Eldar to death but it would be unfluffy.
I haven't checked all of it, but CD and CSM look utterly perfect to me
Thanks. I also gave Tyranids some allies, generally in the desperate category, because whilst nobody likes Tyranids daemons aren't particularly concerned about being eaten, and Chaos Marines rely on not being there once the killing is over. Orks just don't give a damn as long as there's a good fight.
Imperial Guard are willing to go with pretty much anyone of course, except Dark Eldar, they're scary, and Eldar, because they're snooty.
The only problem with the matrix though, is the TauDar combo.
It's fluffy, but abusable. Fine with friends, though, as you can all agree not to be utter D-bags with it
Yes, unfortunately if I recall correctly even making them AoCs wouldn't fix that because it's the combination of units, not the units acting on each other, that creates that unholy synergy.
Making them DA would help, especially if it led to Tau pulse rifling Eldar to death but it would be unfluffy.
Oh my god.
I took the test thing in your sig, and got:
Made me grin
This probably explains why I like to be CSM, Daemons and IG. And why I keep wanting to ally them together. [totally on topic]
Tau would never be Battle Brothers with Orks. Since Orks have been proven that they will not be apart of the Greater Good to shoot them on site. Heck Farsight has lead countless campaigns against the Orks.
"...If such rumours are to be believed (which must be done with natural caution) these Tau mercenaries have fought alongside Kroot (unsurprisingly), Tarellians, Human renegades, Eldar, the accursed Traitor Legions and even Orks..."
From the Commander Farsight entry in the 3rd ed. Tau codex.
Mercenaries are Allies of Convience not Battle Brothers. Also Farsight's fluff has been expanded upon since then. He currently still has Preferred Enemy: Orks, His supplement has Preferred Enemy Orks (Close Combat).
I know. I have quite a large Farsight army.
So what if he has PE:Orks? Doesn't mean he's not shrewd enough to realise they're useful as allies, if only as cannon fodder. I was simply pointing out the potential for Orks working with even the most unlikely of allies is possible.
Tau would never be Battle Brothers with Orks. Since Orks have been proven that they will not be apart of the Greater Good to shoot them on site. Heck Farsight has lead countless campaigns against the Orks.
"...If such rumours are to be believed (which must be done with natural caution) these Tau mercenaries have fought alongside Kroot (unsurprisingly), Tarellians, Human renegades, Eldar, the accursed Traitor Legions and even Orks..."
From the Commander Farsight entry in the 3rd ed. Tau codex.
Mercenaries are Allies of Convience not Battle Brothers. Also Farsight's fluff has been expanded upon since then. He currently still has Preferred Enemy: Orks, His supplement has Preferred Enemy Orks (Close Combat).
I know. I have quite a large Farsight army.
So what if he has PE:Orks? Doesn't mean he's not shrewd enough to realise they're useful as allies, if only as cannon fodder. I was simply pointing out the potential for Orks working with even the most unlikely of allies is possible.
True on the shrewd part hence the Allies of Convenience. Tau aren't buddy buddy with orks as they are with those members within their Empire like Kroot or Gue'vesa. I was just pointing out earlier that Orks and Tau shouldn't be Battle Brothers. Ultramarines and Tau are more buddy buddy with each other and only when they have a common enemy. I think that running a Farsight Enclave should make Orks desperate allies.
Imperial Guard, pretty much battle brothers with everyone except Eldar/Dark Eldar. That reflects Tyranid cults, Chaos cults, Tau auxiliaries, and of course good loyal servants of the Emperor. They could be allies of convenience with Eldar, and desperate allies with Dark Eldar.
Sisters of Battle, battle brothers with all Imperial Forces. Come the Apocalypse with anything Chaos or Dark Eldar, desperate allies with any other Xenos force.
Orks fight with anyone, but don't respect anyone. They'd be allies of convenience with all other forces. Good Orky motto, the enemy of my enemy dies second.
Necrons again should be allies of convenience with most other armies (including Tyranids, no biomatter, no reason for the Hive Mind to eat them). They'd be desperate allies with Dark Eldar, and CtA with Chaos Daemons (abominations from the warp) and Eldar (if the whole war in heaven thing is still in play).
Space Marines, all Space Marines are battle brothers except Dark Angels and Space Wolves who are allies of convenience.
Inquisition (except Grey Knights), battle brothers with all imperial forces and (this might be controversial) Chaos representing Radical Inquisitors who think they can use Chaos to fight Chaos.
Grey Knights, allies of convenience with all Imperial forces, desperate allies with all Xenos. CtA with anything Chaotic.
Those are some pretty Imperial focused proposals. Eldar have no Battle Brothers?
Sorry, got called away before I could finish them.
I knocked up a PDF file showing what I thought the allies matrix should look like. I've probably forgotten something.
I like it alot except not sure about Tau /Eldar Battle Brothers?
I'd put GK as AoC for all imperial forces except the Inquisition and SoB. I'm not sure why they would be BB with guard as they are likely to liquidate them immediately afterwards. For sisters, we only have that one fluff point where they were snuffed out; which I hope will be retconned into oblivion on the next codex release.
Tau shouldn't be more than AoC for anyone, and CtA for Orks and Daemons. Their fluff specifically states that Tau believe the Orks to be irredeemable and to be exterminated on sight. Also I haven't seen anything suggesting Tau have done more than fight against Daemons.
clively wrote: Just saw the chart. Overall I like it. However..
I'd put GK as AoC for all imperial forces except the Inquisition and SoB. I'm not sure why they would be BB with guard as they are likely to liquidate them immediately afterwards. For sisters, we only have that one fluff point where they were snuffed out; which I hope will be retconned into oblivion on the next codex release.
Tau shouldn't be more than AoC for anyone, and CtA for Orks and Daemons. Their fluff specifically states that Tau believe the Orks to be irredeemable and to be exterminated on sight. Also I haven't seen anything suggesting Tau have done more than fight against Daemons.
Yes that whole, "liquidating them after the fight" is why I put Imperial Guard as BB with Grey Knights.
"Sure, we'll make use of your guns and your tanks, and lead you into battle, but once the fight is over..."
I guess it goes even deeper in the rules than who can ally with each other and be battle brothers. I see it two fold. 1. Casting of psycic power on a battle brother (the lesser) and 2. These simple words you see over and over again in the USRs"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" (the Greater) . These simple words lead to 90% of the cheese out there.
In 5th edition it was this: The special rules marked with an asterisk ('*) are automatically lost by an independent character joining a unit that does not have the same special rule.
These rules are also lost by a unit that is joined by an independent character that does not have the same special rule.
Likan Wolfsheim wrote: I don't think the Allies rules themselves are the cause of the most the problems they're blamed for, but as things stand I also don't think they're helping either. I would prefer a no allies and a balanced game over an imbalanced game that included allies...but in the case of a severely imbalanced game with no allies versus one with them...might as well go for the extra options.
This right here is the crux. The screwed up allies balance is just another symptom of a game without any type of balancing involved. Not including allies because their balance is off somewhat implies that the rest of the game is actually balanced and it isn't even remotely so. If I hadn't worked in Quality Assurance for as long as I have the imbalances probably wouldn't bug me so much, but I can easily see ways to fix it. It just requires planning, and forethought to make it happen.
Someone earlier mentioned doing away will all levels of allies except AoC and giving every army the ability to ally with any other army as AoC. This would certainly balance out the allies access, though the base forces involved would still lead to some allied contingents being stronger than others. Not quite as unbalancing, though, if both sides of the table can add eldar psychic powers to the game and those powers only affect other *eldar* units.
Skriker wrote: If I hadn't worked in Quality Assurance for as long as I have the imbalances probably wouldn't bug me so much, but I can easily see ways to fix it.
Skriker
Brother! Same profession! Was trained to not just find problems but look for solutions, address root cause and put in place preventative measures rather than "burn the toast and scrape it".
There is too much meta to the game, chess is pure experience and applied memorization while 40k boils down to rock paper scissors with dice rolling thrown in.
To be on topic, more choices in army composition = the skill of the player (as in play not army selection) has less affect on the outcome.
Makes it even more appealing for a newbie to be able to bring low us neckbeards...
I don't really care for them. While I get that it allows you to somewhat take what you want if you have a diverse collection and think it makes the game too swingy and even harder for the design studio to balance.
The allies system is great, it just adds another way to enojoy playing with our toys. What I find interesting is that the players are ruining the game for themselves by themselves. You don't HAVE to tau-dar, you dont HAVE to spam undercosted unit X! You could just play for fun!
Allied rules are a good thing. They can be fluffy, and also allow you to explore other codexes. My Eldar/Dark Eldar allies have made the game alot more fun for me, it also allows me to learn other factions game play on a small scale, like tau, ig, and DE. I've seen them used for cheese and sure its annoying, but the people I play with are more interested in just enjoying the game so I've only ever had good experiences with Allies rules.
i think allies is a waste of time. all it does is say to your opponent, "i cant win with a single army codex, i have to take a second one"
like really? and its at the point of just silliness. an allied force coming in at 1000 pts seems ....ridiculus to me. thats barley enough points to make minimum selections, with allies factored in. imho i think allies should only be available once you have filled out your initial force org chart. once thats full, THEN allies can start showing up. but of course at that level of points, you are probally getting close to apoc territory... wich is where i think allies really should be limited to. but, since GW seems to be trying to turn normal 40k into apoc, i guess my point is invalid.
i still stand by my thoughts. allies, allied detachments... its all just ... a waste or rules. i wont be fielding allies unless im lining up my 12000 pts of dark eldar, and i happen to have my 3 titans on field. then i might consider breaking out the crons as an allied force.
i wish the game would go back to simple 1 army fighting 1 army, not this "trying to be apoc and whfb all at once" bs.
I can see how the system can be abused, but frankly I don't really have too much of an issue with it. It opens up a lot of really fluffy options (like Blood Pact for World Eaters providing actual firepower) and also gives some of the less...nasty armies some options to help them keep up with the likes of Necrons etc.
Vaktathi wrote: I feel that allies, in theory, could have been made to work on some level. The way they are currently implemented now is awful, it's almost exclusively used to create unintended synergies or fill capability gaps that were intentionally created for balance reasons, with lots of armies that absolutely ruin any sort of immersion in the background.
It certainly doesn't help that the allies chart makes zero sense either from a fluff or balance perspective. Tau battle brothers with Space Marines? IG able to ally with Chaos Daemons? It feels like there's latitude for stuff like Chaos Cultists (e.g. IG allying with Chaos) but not for Genestealer Cults (IG cannot ally with Tyranids), and thus the compromises are very inconsistent.
Much of the bigger balance problems could be solved by simply removing the Battle Brothers benefits, but it's still a borked system overall.
Exactly.
Seeing a necron army with a riptide, minimum kroot and a buff mander really didn't spark the immersive story feel to me, it just felt like I was being told "this is my stupid bs army, and you have to deal with it cause I say so" which is anathema to everything the game is about. At that point you might as well throw down coke cans and say they are void shield generators and some green army men to whatever you feel like.
I think what it is is that the integrity of the game is eroding at an alarming rate, way back when you saw something stupid you called it out, and the top armies were really balanced and run but good generals. Net lists were nearly always 1 trick ponies and failed against anything that is tactically sound. Now it seems that if its not a net list you don't have a hope in hell of competing, and making something that deals with everything is nearly impossible, you have to concede to the fact that you design your army knowing another build will wreck your face no matter what you do. These factors have always been in the game but the emphasis is much higher then it used to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarthSpader wrote: i think allies is a waste of time. all it does is say to your opponent, "i cant win with a single army codex, i have to take a second one"
like really? and its at the point of just silliness. an allied force coming in at 1000 pts seems ....ridiculus to me. thats barley enough points to make minimum selections, with allies factored in. imho i think allies should only be available once you have filled out your initial force org chart. once thats full, THEN allies can start showing up. but of course at that level of points, you are probally getting close to apoc territory... wich is where i think allies really should be limited to. but, since GW seems to be trying to turn normal 40k into apoc, i guess my point is invalid.
i still stand by my thoughts. allies, allied detachments... its all just ... a waste or rules. i wont be fielding allies unless im lining up my 12000 pts of dark eldar, and i happen to have my 3 titans on field. then i might consider breaking out the crons as an allied force.
i wish the game would go back to simple 1 army fighting 1 army, not this "trying to be apoc and whfb all at once" bs.
Another good point.
Your allies should never out point the main force. There should be a cap on the points spent on allies. Like 25%, that way you only see them in bigger games (aka fluff games).
Redseer wrote: Allied rules are a good thing. They can be fluffy, and also allow you to explore other codexes. My Eldar/Dark Eldar allies have made the game alot more fun for me, it also allows me to learn other factions game play on a small scale, like tau, ig, and DE. I've seen them used for cheese and sure its annoying, but the people I play with are more interested in just enjoying the game so I've only ever had good experiences with Allies rules.
the number of armies I've seen eldar/dark eldar that doesn't use a 2+ rerollable =0. it's become a 1+ in every E/DE army. its quite stale for me.
captain collius wrote: They can be good or bad I just wish GW had made the Allies Chart more realistic. I.E. Dark Angels don't really trust anyone ever they only get along with the Guard because the guard generally doesn't question what the DA tell them. Conversely Most space marines won't do the same. Also Necrons and Blood angels should not be battle brothers.
captain collius wrote: They can be good or bad I just wish GW had made the Allies Chart more realistic. I.E. Dark Angels don't really trust anyone ever they only get along with the Guard because the guard generally doesn't question what the DA tell them. Conversely Most space marines won't do the same. Also Necrons and Blood angels should not be battle brothers.
Yup, that is my one gripe about allies as well
Also space marines should not be battle brothers with tau, but IG should be battle brothers with tau (purge the xenos and gue'vessa auxiliary respectively).
Your allies should never out point the main force. There should be a cap on the points spent on allies. Like 25%, that way you only see them in bigger games (aka fluff games).
That's how it was in 2nd edition. Certain allies were listed as being available for an army, and you could only have up to 50% of your force be allies.
The allies aren't the problem. The problem is the army books the allies come from. 6th edition is great is you just look at the CRB. As usual, it's the army books that mess everything up.
To go back to Starcraft analogies, if Zerg, Protoss, and Terran are all balanced, then Zerg and Protoss vs Terran and Terran should be a decent match. In 40K, we have Tau and Eldar vs Space Marines and IG and it's just comparable because the lists aren't balanced to being with. This being the case, I don't think we can logically fault the allies rules.
They should keep allies but have more conditions, such as no special characters on both teams as it seems unlikely that asdrubael vect and eldrad would be able to put their differences aside, whereas if either the dark eldar or eldar were without strong leadership they might be more likely to throw in their lot with the others. Similarly nids should get a unit nominated to have mind control or whatever, and can ally if with non special character led armies if they take it. Necrons allying with tau does my head in, theres no explanation, its just so people can build stupid powerlists with no flavour.
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
