Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Only read page 2. So alot of people are trying to justify this by using FLUFF.

So as someone said, if SW and GK are fighting at Armagedon, and say fight my Nids, and I say I am not at Armagedon, does that make us both TFG? I mean I am saying we are not at Armagedon when fighting so I am TFG, and you are still TFG since you are still using SW and GK in a non fluffy section.

Also if we go by Fluff, after the battle will you destroy your SW army? This would be like either the GK/Inqusition kills/and or mind wipes them. THIS WOULD BE FLUFFY THEN.

Another example I read was like Tau allying up with BT or another army agaisnt Tyranids. They ally up to destroy the Nid invation. Ok what if you are not playing agaisnt Nids then? ARE you TFG because now you are playing in a non fluffy way?

You know I find it kind of funny, almost all the justification is because it's "Fluffy". Why doens't anyone have the balls to say, this is what they enjoy and it will give them fun instead of hiding behind justification and say it's fluffy.

Thatguyoverthere wrote:I think part of the problem is going to be that some really fluffy allies might also be over powered.

Allot of combinations with IG for example would seem to be overpowered. Given the ubiquity of IG in the setting, Loyalist Guard, Traitor Guard, and Tau's Goey 'v's would mean that just about anyone could ally with Guard and have it make sense in the fluff.

The problems come from armies being good at one specific thing. Guard and Tau for example are the premiere shooty armies, but , with some exceptions, crumble like wet newspaper in close combat. If they suddenly have access to some of the toughest melee units in the game, even if it makes sense from a fluff stand point, they are going to get a huge boost.

I do think some armies will LOOOVE the pain that IG can add to their list. The requirements are real easy to meet, too. 320 points nets you a Primaris Psyker who gets to roll for up to 2 powers, a squad of veterans with three meltaguns, and a pair of Hydras to deal with fliers.

so why is taking units that work in your codex automatically make you TFG? aparently longfangs, venoms, etc all make you TFG as soon as they touch your army list.


so to avoid being TFG's everyone should just take 1 of everything, no duplicates allowed. because god forbid youactually take units in your army that are actually decent usable...

but hey if it means not being TFg ill gladley trade my warriors in for a unit of wracks, a unit of wyches, some foot wyches, some foot warriors and a single warrior squad on raider. then ill take a talos, a jet fighter, and a bomber for heavies, a single incubi squad, maybe some mandrakes and bloodbrides, cause trueborn, venoms and ravagers are effective so i cant have them.

to those who cry "X list is OP, taking it = TFG" go learn to play your army and stop whining. taking a list that works is NOT being TFG, the attitude used when using it is.

Davor wrote:Only read page 2. So alot of people are trying to justify this by using FLUFF.

So as someone said, if SW and GK are fighting at Armagedon, and say fight my Nids, and I say I am not at Armagedon, does that make us both TFG? I mean I am saying we are not at Armagedon when fighting so I am TFG, and you are still TFG since you are still using SW and GK in a non fluffy section.

Also if we go by Fluff, after the battle will you destroy your SW army? This would be like either the GK/Inqusition kills/and or mind wipes them. THIS WOULD BE FLUFFY THEN.

Another example I read was like Tau allying up with BT or another army agaisnt Tyranids. They ally up to destroy the Nid invation. Ok what if you are not playing agaisnt Nids then? ARE you TFG because now you are playing in a non fluffy way?

You know I find it kind of funny, almost all the justification is because it's "Fluffy". Why doens't anyone have the balls to say, this is what they enjoy and it will give them fun instead of hiding behind justification and say it's fluffy.

Your post made me LOL, just because I am sure that there are people cooking up ways to add uber stuff to their current Purifier/SW Razorspam/BA Mech list right now, who feel the need to justify why they are adding a squadron of Leman Russ tanks to their BA Mech list or Long Fangs to their Purifier spam lists.

The addition of allies does allow for more enjoyment of the game fluffwise, but I will cringe the first time I see Dark Eldar teaming with Grey Knights or Blood Angels. I know it will happen eventually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarthSpader wrote:so why is taking units that work in your codex automatically make you TFG? aparently longfangs, venoms, etc all make you TFG as soon as they touch your army list.


so to avoid being TFG's everyone should just take 1 of everything, no duplicates allowed. because god forbid youactually take units in your army that are actually decent usable...

but hey if it means not being TFg ill gladley trade my warriors in for a unit of wracks, a unit of wyches, some foot wyches, some foot warriors and a single warrior squad on raider. then ill take a talos, a jet fighter, and a bomber for heavies, a single incubi squad, maybe some mandrakes and bloodbrides, cause trueborn, venoms and ravagers are effective so i cant have them.

to those who cry "X list is OP, taking it = TFG" go learn to play your army and stop whining. taking a list that works is NOT being TFG, the attitude used when using it is.

IMO you are not TFG for running a list that takes full advantage of your codex, what makes you (not you personally) TFG is that you run that same old tired list game after game, and you have to win everytime. Maybe now we will see more than a couple select units from each codex on the table. I know from a Grey Knight standpoint the Dreadknights stock rose quite a bit thanks to the ability to select other pyschic powers and maybe to even use that silly flying death from above attack.

exactly. thats ATTITUDE, and has nothing to do with army list composistion. if i made an army with 1 of everything and completly ROFLPWNED everyone, and then bragged and rubbed it in, and was basically a bunghole about it then im fully qualified for the title. there are plenty of people in my local area who play "netlists" and are very nice people, fun to play against, and generally have 2 lists. the super optimized one, and a more "toned down" version. personally i have venomspam, but i also have a lighter version of it, namley with fewer warrior venoms, some wyches, and a fighter replacing a ravager. i wont break out the tournament grade list unless its a tourney, or im requested.

but ... again TFG is an attitude 100%, nothing else. although i suppose you could argue for a TFL (that f***ing list) situation...

DarthSpader wrote:exactly. thats ATTITUDE, and has nothing to do with army list composistion. if i made an army with 1 of everything and completly ROFLPWNED everyone, and then bragged and rubbed it in, and was basically a bunghole about it then im fully qualified for the title. there are plenty of people in my local area who play "netlists" and are very nice people, fun to play against, and generally have 2 lists. the super optimized one, and a more "toned down" version. personally i have venomspam, but i also have a lighter version of it, namley with fewer warrior venoms, some wyches, and a fighter replacing a ravager. i wont break out the tournament grade list unless its a tourney, or im requested.

but ... again TFG is an attitude 100%, nothing else. although i suppose you could argue for a TFL (that f***ing list) situation...

Well the days of Netlists are over I believe, the options are limitless now as to what you can put together. Runepriests and Broadsides FTW!

valace2 wrote:The addition of allies does allow for more enjoyment of the game fluffwise, but I will cringe the first time I see Dark Eldar teaming with Grey Knights or Blood Angels. I know it will happen eventually.

I seriously doubt it. If the rules are similar to those in fantasy the disadvantages in playing the army will outweigh any advantages.

I'm going to be blunt.

It's a game. If I want to put some Tau in my IG, then I will, because I think it'll be fun. It's not being TFG, it's me getting the most out of a game I enjoy. Hardcore fluff be damned, I'll think of some justification

Agree that attitude makes you TFG. We had a guy at a recent tournament who was basically wearing a sign that said it.

When you go around before a tournament starts making comments about other peoples armies like "Oh look a Netlist", or "Have you ever seen so much cheese in one place?" and he was the guy playing 3 Rune Priests with Jaws and maxed out Long Fangs.

Now that I think of it, I might get him a big shirt with just those 3 letters really big across the front so people will know not to even talk to him.

right.

and if that same player had instead, used the same list but been friendly, respectable and otherwise a good sport, he would NOT be TFG.

personally i play my venomspam lists at tourneys. simply because i go expecting to see the same caliber. when i dont or when i clean up in a match, i make darn sure to shake hands after along with the "good game thanks for playing" and so on. i also do my best to be as polite and respectful as possible, if i dont know a rule and question it, i make sure to point out im just ignorant and want clarification. there are also numerous other players in the local area who play "netlists" and are also very good sports, and great opponents.

some people arent like that, but again...it boils down to attitude for sure... and really it is only a game. if you cant have a good time with it, why spend thousands of dollars on it? not like you can make a career out of playing and winning 40k....

DarthSpader wrote:so why is taking units that work in your codex automatically make you TFG? aparently longfangs, venoms, etc all make you TFG as soon as they touch your army list.


so to avoid being TFG's everyone should just take 1 of everything, no duplicates allowed. because god forbid youactually take units in your army that are actually decent usable...

but hey if it means not being TFg ill gladley trade my warriors in for a unit of wracks, a unit of wyches, some foot wyches, some foot warriors and a single warrior squad on raider. then ill take a talos, a jet fighter, and a bomber for heavies, a single incubi squad, maybe some mandrakes and bloodbrides, cause trueborn, venoms and ravagers are effective so i cant have them.

to those who cry "X list is OP, taking it = TFG" go learn to play your army and stop whining. taking a list that works is NOT being TFG, the attitude used when using it is.

Since I mentioned Longfangs in like 4 posts lately I'll assume you are kinda refering to me.

My problem isn't people using models that they think are cool or would add some kick to their armies. My problem is that some people will exploit this new rule to an extreme.

My fear is that most WAAC players will crunch points and immediatly see that their He'Stan/Lysander can now include Grey Hunters (superiour troop choice) and Longfangs (superiour heavy choice) without changing anything. They certainly won't waste time and money converting anything. They can just say that they "have veteran skills".

Also I don't see what point you're trying to make by listing DE units.

Taking "units in your army that are actually decent usable" is fine. Having a squad of Grey Hunters bro-fisting Duke Sliscuss while riding in a Raider seems a little TFG.

But then again my defenition for TFG might be different than yours. Sure it's an attitude thing. "I'm going to make a GK/BA list so stupid... the guys at the FLGS are gonna love this!"

So then TFG walks in with his specifically broken list and we all "roll our eyes" knowing TFG just got his copy of the rulebook.

I agree Darth. If I play against someone with a "netlist" who is a casual good natured person who is respectful of people and we have a smooth flowing game and I lose I really don't care. It happened in the last tournament. I went up against a guy running the Scarab Farm list for Crons and had a perfectly enjoyable game. I've known him for years now and we were both laughing even though I was getting ripped apart.

Losing to someone who is playing the "netlist" and they are TFG is like nails on a chalkboard though.

tetrisphreak wrote:

Thatguyoverthere wrote:I think part of the problem is going to be that some really fluffy allies might also be over powered.

The problems come from armies being good at one specific thing. Guard and Tau for example are the premiere shooty armies, but , with some exceptions, crumble like wet newspaper in close combat. If they suddenly have access to some of the toughest melee units in the game, even if it makes sense from a fluff stand point, they are going to get a huge boost.

Good. Let everyone get boosts. It's the easiest way to a level playing field for everyone...

No, the easiest route to a level playing field would be to employ writers capable of designing balanced army lists, not to allow wild disparities in effectiveness to emerge, and then to try to fix them with the sticking-plaster of alliances.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Glorioski wrote:We do now, check it out...

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=22400024a&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Astronomican+%28Astronomican%29

Pretty pictures and catalogue but it doesn't seem to have any actual links to info...

Click the links to the left, not the ones beneath the images that indeed lead to nowhere.

Have you noticed that the lists are in alphabetical order, in 2 or 3 sections. The most likely candidates are on top, followed by increasingly unlikely candidates (sisters of battle are listed under S).

I never played anything but 5th edition so don't know how Allies will impact the meta... but as a hobbyist who enjoys the P&M side as much as the gaming I'm looking at it as a huge opportunity for conversions and incorporating small side forces into armies. I hope for that reason alone people wouldn't look at me as TFG for it.

E.g. My Orks looted Space Marines contingent or their enslaved Tau, or finally having a good excuse to add some Flesh Tearers to the BA army without having to start from scratch.

This is the problem all gaming communities have - all of them have TFG or a bunch of WAAC players and sometimes the two go hand in hand.

Will I use allies? Yes.

Will I abuse the rules? No.

I want to make an army fluffy, like the Tau with GueVesa or CSM with Daemons or Traitor Guard.

Hell, I even want a Harlequin army, which is now totally allowed under the new ally rules.

My fear is that most WAAC players will crunch points and immediatly see that their He'Stan/Lysander can now include Grey Hunters (superiour troop choice) and Longfangs (superiour heavy choice) without changing anything. They certainly won't waste time and money converting anything. They can just say that they "have veteran skills".

I'm not sure why they would take them as allies, they would probably prefer to take them as a main army if they really gave a damn about it.

Now that tacs can move with heavy weapons and still fire them, and lascannons are now able to do damage rolling. I feel I would prefer them to GH a bit.

In broad terms, the Imperium makes very little distinction between Craftworld Eldar and the denizens of Commoragh. To them, the two races are simply Eldar. Therefore, if they will ally with one, they will ally with the other.

EDIT - And I'm not a fan of these ally rules either, but in fluff terms, most of the match ups make sense. The good guys joining forces with the bad guys to defeat a more evil bad guy is a classic story device.

My short answer is no but I think to some degree you have to look at this from the personal standpoint of the person taking the allies. If it is just to get some rarely used models he owns on the table then I am probably fine with that.

At the same time I tend to like to play in games that are "historical" or "fluffy" so I would prefer that the pairings of allies make some sort of sense from a storytelling standpoint.

In my case I own a small IG force, maybe 2000 points; about 5000 points of Black Templars, about 8000 points of Vanilla Marines of my own chapter, 2000 points of Minotaurs, about 2000 points of Crimson Fists and around 11000 points of Orks.

I will probably at some point ally in my IG with one of the marine flavors. I cannot ever imagine allying in Orks with any of the Imperials and just would not do it.

I think all I would ask of my opponent in regards to allies is that they make some kind of sense. So if he shows up with Crimson Fists and wants to ally in Orks I would prefer he not do it. However, I would not refuse to play him if that is what he really wanted to bring.

i agree with this looking forward to csm/daemons.

so not looking forward to IG / GK power combo builds

Both are fluffy

I think these allies are a great way to sell starter sets. I knew I certainly wasn't buying one because I don't play DA or CSM and don't plan to, so I have no reason to buy it. I can just get the big rulebook. Now I have a possible reason to get it. Still won't but in the same way, someone who plays Daemons or IG, they may say "Don't need anything, can't use it, no go."

Now they can say "Oh, maybe some Deathwing to go with my Draigowing, or some Berserkers to suit my Tzeentch Daemons."

Allies in and of themselves does not make one a terrible person or a "TFG"

Using allies in an abusive manner however does.

So, if you want a chaplain and a couple squads of marines with your IG fine. If you want to load up on long fangs, not so fine.

IG/GK (or any army with GK) is only fluffy if you are fighting against Demons.

Fluff is no excuse for poor game balance, especially if it is used to gimp one faction at the expense of others.

Which is not to say that allies makes you TFG. If it's in the rulebook, you can use it.

I see what the OP is trying to say, and I think he has a legitimate point. But look at it this way... For all of those players who hate GK and SW because they are "overpowered" and are tired of losing. Now you can have some OP cheese in your army too.

I play space wolves - have always played space wolves and will always play space wolves and I can tell you they don't need allies. Nor do I want any. But it might be fun to convert up a death watch kill team and a deathwatch captain just to have them in my army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And by the way .... people have been playing 2 on 2 team games for a long time. Those games had no restrictions on who could be allies. They must have had the same issues, but I dont' remember anybody complaining then.

Yes. And thus, IMO, 6th Edition makes being TFG, if not mandatory, at least overwhelmingly likely if you want to be "competitive." OP, unmotivated, unfluffy "allies" will be added just to over-maximize already "maximized" lists.

So much whining!

Seriously, if you don't want to play against allies, you don't have to. Just tell your opponent you have no interest in playing against it, and either you find a new opponent or they whip up a single army list and fight allies against someone else. No one is going to be forcing you at gunpoint to play against it.

Personally, I look forward to running my Daemons with IG and CSM, and my BT with Steel legion. I may decide that I have no interest in playing against a BA/GK combo, or against a non-fluffy list like Crons/anything. If so, I will just say "thanks but no thanks".

TFG will be TFG no matter what the rules, codexes or whatever. We had TFG when BA came out, when SW, GK and IG came out. There will be TFG when CSM comes out, and when 6th Ed finally arrives. Its really simple, if you want to use the allies rules to be TFG, then no one can stop you except to not play against you. And if you are TFG, there is literally no way to force someone to play against you.


edit: On a side note, I notice that no one is bringing up old complaints about how allies destroyed Apocalypse. Even though you could literally ally anything in that format.

People also need to realize that taking allies isn't going to be a complete separate detachment with its own comprehensive FOC. You can't take 3 psyflemen dreadnoughts in addition to the 3 you already have. Allied armies are mandatory 1HQ and 1 Troop, then 0-1 for a second Troop, Fast Attack, Elites and Heavy Support. It's enough to fill some gaps and add some flavor without overpowering the army you already have.

In other words, I'll be adding an IG platoon and Leman Russ squad to my Crimson Fists some games, not a whole second army of Imperial Guard.

Hmmm. It makes me want to play as GK now. Just so I can have 10 models of GKs as my army, and two platoons of IG totaling over 100 models, as my small detachment of allies.

No, but even stil a possibility of a Guard army with 4 Vendetta Squadrons is insane. And all you need is another CCS, always good and another Meltavet squad to hurl in a vendetta. And if there is points left over you can squeeze in another few Hydras for taking out enemy aircraft.