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.

The problem with Allies really is that 95% of the time they aren't there for people to field their whole collections or create interesting forces, but to plug gaps in capabilities or enhance existing ones, and simply up the overall power level.

That's not what the mechanic should be there for.

In theory, an interesting concept, but poorly executed. They really should not add FoC slots but should use your existing ones and the matrix of who can take what is...bonkers.

How many overpowered combos are there though? I think having a second FoC backpacked on helps alleviate the chance of having an otherwise overpowered army. It artificially requires you to sink a lot of points into the FoC without cherry picking. In 1500 points, it's tough to get a lot of units on the board if you are doing allies.

I am just getting into the game myself, and there were a couple of different armies that I liked, or liked the idea of. The lack of allies irritated me.

With 6th out, I get to run my IG/Sisters 'Normal humans burn all the bad things' list. It would have been impossible before.

 Ovion wrote:
Every ally you take removes points from your primary forces - generally, I can't justify losing those points for what the allies will bring...
Some things of course do seem worth it, crazy little combos here and there.
Then of course, some things, like Chaos and Daemons make sense to have together.

I would start by reading the new rules and maybe trying some games before deciding you hate it, a knee-jerk reaction with no info is a bad way to make the choice.

Exactly this. Some of the combos aloud are hard to get your head round and I really don't like a lot of them. But, reading a lot of the forums, it seems many people feel like Ovion does and that adding a secondary detachment will detract from a strong primary force. You'll get some people taking strange combos but I think these are very much in the minority.

From a fluff perspective you can make a case for the many combinations. IG - Space Marines obviously, IG(traitor?) - Chaos, CSM - Daemons. Even some of the stranger combos can make a bit of sense fluffwise if you push it. And think of the multiplayer games you can now have. E.G. You with your IG and your friends Eldar can finally stop just fighting each other in order to meet the threat of your other friends tyraninds who have just appeared over the horizon.

There are positives. I'm an old 2nd ED player and I remember allies fondly. I know some of the possible combinations don't quite sit right but I think the majority of players, no matter how competitive, like to remain true to the fluff. I doubt you'll see many Ork/Grey Knight forces.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Maybe he plays nids . For nid players ally or fortification rules kind of a suck . When your opponents or friends can mix and match and tailor against you [IG army puts in a SW rune priest with jaws and GH as counter unit] . My friend played nids whole 5th , wasnt happy , but when I started to jaws his MC while playing IG and then others started to do the same , he quit .

Tyranids don't really need allies in 6th edition. Sure, it would be nice to be able to jump on the 'everyone brings a Manticore' wagon, but Tyranids got plenty stronger in 6th edition. My bugs - the same list I used in 5th edition, mind you - went from being lucky to draw to being lucky to not table my opponents. My BA playing brother was tabled twice by turn 3. Like Ovion, I can't find any spare points I'd prefer to lose in order to take any allies.

Really? What list do you run, because our local Nid player is having serious issues keeping up.

From what I've seen Nids are very powerful in the hands of an experienced intelligent player. Far moreso than any of the other armies that were considered to be lower tier in 5th. Nid Psychic Choir can really smash most armies with their only real counter being GKSS spam with divination inquisitors and GH with runepriests.

However if run by an inexperienced player they will never achieve the same results.

Nerobellum wrote:
How many overpowered combos are there though? I think having a second FoC backpacked on helps alleviate the chance of having an otherwise overpowered army. It artificially requires you to sink a lot of points into the FoC without cherry picking. In 1500 points, it's tough to get a lot of units on the board if you are doing allies.

A good amount of the time however those "forced" units are exactly what you want (often stronger scoring units and/or HQ's that give some special ability) while still allowing you to take more big guns.

Armies making use of allies have an expanded array of options that they really only feel pain for if they can't find a use for more scoring units.

This is also of course not counting that access to, and quality of, allies is highly variable.

nealtk wrote:
I admit I have not read the new rules but based off the lists I'm seeing posted, there are absurd combinations being allowed. I'm sure alot of people disagree but It has really killed it for me.

I can only guess you mean absurd in the sense of lore-wise. No ally combos are any more broken than 'pure' lists in the gameplay.

When 6th was still being rumoured and for about a week or 2 after that. I despised allies, My thoughts on the game were that every codex had its strengths and its weaknesses, but man has my mind flipped.

In 5th you had the great armies, the alright armies and the crap armies. But now with allies, its been a 180, any army can be good now.

Example. Tau and eldar. Back in 5th they were kind of bottom of the pile, lost many more games then they won. Now in 6th you can ally them together and holy smokes. It becomes a whole different ball game.

Allies also I find reduces the spam actually because it encourages people to take units other than their most powerful units. With allies you usually build a balanced list and when you do face a spam list your ready for it because allies have plugged any holes all that spam may have crept in.

However I do not like double force orgs because contrary to what I said above, they greatly encourage spamming which is the opposite then what we want. The only army I think that should be allowed to double force org is tyranids (at above 1500 pts) not because they cant have allies but because it also makes sense in their fluff.

Cheesedoodler wrote:

 Mindshred wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Really? What list do you run, because our local Nid player is having serious issues keeping up.

Just losing No Retreat! was a huge boon to Nids.

In 5th edition, I won a good number of games, but once 6th rolled around, it was like someone flipped a switch and just let the army run wild.

A "boon" is something *GOOD* that happens. If you boss gives you a raise, he has granted you a boon.

Boon (Noun)
1. something to be thankful for; blessing; benefit.
2. something that is asked; a favor sought.

Yes, and Tyranids losing No Retreat! was a very good thing.