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.

Allies are incredibly lame IMO. The armies are what they are - allies really breaks up the spirit of the game for me. I don't think allies are particularly fluffy either - just because something needs fluff to be explained does not make it fluffier than anything else.

Beyond that, I think the tables start to look pretty silly when one game has four mix n match forces on them.

Thokt wrote:
Allies are incredibly lame IMO. The armies are what they are - allies really breaks up the spirit of the game for me. I don't think allies are particularly fluffy either - just because something needs fluff to be explained does not make it fluffier than anything else.

Beyond that, I think the tables start to look pretty silly when one game has four mix n match forces on them.

So Chaos Daemons and Chaos Space Marines must part ways?

What about the Guard and Space Marines/SoBs?

Or the Tau and Eldar (who do have many reasons to be together)?

What about Ork mercenaries?

Allies aren't cheating as they are in the rule set. With that said I'm not a fan. IMO this game has always been about pitting codex against codex, allies just blur everything. I use allies in my CSM/CD builds but I would gladly give that up to go back to faction versus faction.

Honestly any complaint about allies would go if I could have Imperial Guard, Tau, Ork, and Eldar allies to represent genestealer cults.

The OP has summed this issue up very well, imo. "Cheating" is a good way of putting it.

Part of the learning curve of WH40k, in my opinion, is getting to master your army, whatever army that may be. The way you'll do this is by learning to make the most of its strengths and making sure its weaknesses aren't exploited. For example, with my Orks, the main weakness I've found is lack of ranged Anti-Armour and anti-MEQ. I've learned to deal with this through many and hard fought battles (often ending in bitter defeat) and as a result I've maintained an impressive win/loss ratio with my Orks in recent months.

I could have, however, stuck in some Tau/Chaos allies to patch up this weaknesses but, as the OP puts it so well, I feel like it's cheating...

I don't really mind allies - they are a great tool for fluffy players to be creative with legal lists. Of course some are trying to push limits with OP builds... but really those people are a minority.

Although I haven't done it, I like the option of being able to add some daemons to my deathguard. I also used the rules as an excuse to purchase some DKoK allies for my GKs.

I could live without them though.

Not "cheating" as this would mean breaking the rules, but yeah, as everyone expected, allies is mostly used to cheese your army up.

I find it quite annoying when people imply I am a cheat or braking the fluff when I use allies. Allies where a great idea, not saying I agree with all pairings fluff wise, and some or quite powerful, but most of the power lists are made from lists that where powerful anyway. Grey Crons? Knights or Crons can also make obscenely powerful lists, I'd rather a wraithwing then paying the Cortez tax for a dreadknight. Its a different build sure, but its not beyond the ball park. I play Deldar because for ages I wanted to start eldar, but never bothered. 6th ed came out and first thing I do is buy rangers and a farseer.

Now half the time I bring out my Deldar out people say 'How can DE and CWE work together, they hate each other!'. For some reason loads of people think its like chaos and the imperium, which is just wrong. Then a further third call me OP for running a Harlestar with a 2++ archon up front. Usually with fortune.

I think its a great idea, ok system, but needs ironing out. For an example something I've found to combat shadowseers average leadership or to make sure fortune goes of is to put grisly trophies on venoms, 'cause CWE reallyt get off on that stuff.

Yes, I feel like allies are cheating. Back in my day everyone was too hatefully bigoted to work with anyone and that's the way we liked it.

I like the potential concept behind allies, but the execution has been awful. First, they're usually taken to shore up a weakness, not create a more interesting force, or to abuse something in a way it wasn't intended.

Second, the allies matrix is weird and contradictory, with very little rhyme or reason. Some allies were bent so as to provide fluff options for things like Traitor IG, but other factions remained rigidly adherent, like Tyranids who can't ally with anyone, and then we get absolute garbage like Space Marines and Tau being Battle Brothers.

Yep. Interesting concept that can be used for fluff armies but most often gets used to bring IG / Necrons / GK / Tau in.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Yes, I feel like allies are cheating. Back in my day everyone was too hatefully bigoted to work with anyone and that's the way we liked it.

QFT. Seriously man, what happened to the good ole days when you might ally with someone then blast them to atoms once they served their purpose?

I like allies as they allow me to build fluffy, narrative lists. Including a contingent of PDF with my Sisters when defending a Shrine World from Orkish invasion makes sense. Ultramarines leading the charge supported by Imperial Guard artillery makes sense. Chaos Daemons and Traitor Legions fighting the servants of the Corpse-God makes sense.

But, then, I build lists to be fluffy. If I were a WAAC player, I'd not collect SoB. I'd collect an army with a more universally useful toolset, like Tau.

It's the allies matrix I have a problem with. It's silly and GW haven't even bothered to hide the BY MOARE MODELZ behind a sensible allies grid.

I don't mind the concept of allies, starting mostly in 2nd edition I grew up with it. It was always wide open to abuse though.

1) List-building in 40K is always open to "abuse", adding allies doesn't worsen the problem much, if at all.

2) Allies are true old-school 40K. I grew up with a 40K were allies were the norm.

3) Allies (especially everyone-can-ally-with-everyone-apocalypse-allies) mitigate the heavy role of lists (and imbalanced Codexes) by giving every player potential access to every tool, making 40K - probably for the first time in history - a game somewhat competitive.

4) 16 Codex books without allies gives you 256 possible match-ups to play the game. 16 Codex books with up to (on average) 3 allies-option per Codex already give you already well over 4,000 possible match-ups to play the game. 16 Codex books with all-out Apocalypse everyone-can-be-allies-with-everyone gives you well over 65,000 possible match-ups to play the game. The sheer amount of diversity added to the game with allies (or taken away without allies) is mind-blowing.

5) Nobody is forcing anyone to take allies. If you prefer 40K without allies, don't take allies. It's an option that is there for people that like it, and an option you don't have to use if you don't. Everyone wins.

I like allies because it allows you to buy that shiny new model you wanted, but there was no reason to since it isn't part of your main army.

*looks at his Riptide*

You know, this thread can help you tell who started in 5th edition and who started either earlier or in 6th edition.

Does any one play doubles tournaments/games?
I remember a couple my friends went to during 5e.
I also vaguely remember 3e (local/FLGS) tournaments had possible allied detachments of 500pts on top of your army's 1000 pt.

Allies is not something I do, but I don't see a big issue with it as concepts go.
Pity about the matrix. Perhaps some of the independent tournament organizers will dump the matrix restrictions.

 Accipiter wrote:
Does any one play doubles tournaments/games?
I remember a couple my friends went to during 5e.
I also vaguely remember 3e (local/FLGS) tournaments had possible allied detachments of 500pts on top of your army's 1000 pt.

Allies is not something I do, but I don't see a big issue with it as concepts go.
Pity about the matrix. Perhaps some of the independent tournament organizers will dump the matrix restrictions.

I have played a few triples game with allies.

One time one side was all nids...all of which used my models and two friends of mine running around with them.

One of them broke a Carnifex's arm.

I was most displeased.

IF allies diddn't cost points, they would be cheating.

Since you pay points for them, no, it's not cheating at all. Youy may fix issues with one army, at the cost of making the first army smaller.

I like the allies system. Because now Chaos can be played almost like it could be in 2nd edition.

CSM, Heretics and Daemons all in one army.

BTW I know that allies isn't a new thing, but if they're going to go back to those days please can we go back to the rules in the codex i.e. Space marines may take allies from the following codexes: imperial guard, sisters of battle etc.
I think that would have been better personally.

Weirdly i dont feel like all allies are wrong, chaos and daemons should be have been together all along, and space marines should be nothing more than an elite option in an imperial guard codex or in a forces of the imperium multi-dex along with everything else. (Too many marines)
But hey, that's not how it works now so i'll just have to destroy all allied forces in the name of the 'greater good'.

I love the IDEA of Allies. IG working with Space Marine support is awesome to be able to field on the tabletop for that great feel of an important battle.

Unfortunately, like most things 40k, a lot of people take that fluff perspective and throw it out the window for "what crazy powerful spam or combo can I come up with now that I have Allies".

Seems alotta people started in late 4th/5th, considering allies used to be the norm for some.

If you remove allies, I want my 3.5 dex back.

Until you do, I'm keeping my daemons with my CSM, as they properly should be.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I love the IDEA of Allies. IG working with Space Marine support is awesome to be able to field on the tabletop for that great feel of an important battle.

Well, I love the IDEA of outlandish combinations.

There's no creative effort involved in running Space Marines + IG or Chaos Marines + Daemons.

I like to see people go the extra mile to make the unexpected options work, both in the game and in the background.

I like allies, brings some diversity and added challenges to a field. also lets you fix and balance out a list. say you want to play dark angels but your flyers suck and you have some imperial guard you can shore up your weakness with a Valkyrie, and add in a few sniper or heavy weapons teams to back up your army and have cheap objectives. or a fav of mine orks but with some eldar allies to help them blow through armor. and have some fire support to help the lads get in combat

I like people lauding the idea that they have to stick with the weaknesses of their armies after allies are introduced and then rules are dramatically changed.

I play four armies. Two of them have older books that aren't as competitive, Wolves and Sisters. I'm sorry I want to make up for their abysmal lack of AA with a completely rules legal method. Oh wait, I'm not! Every Marines codex now has some form of valid AA, be it good, bad, or indifferent except Wolves. So can the crap on that. Yes, I'd even take expensive Flakk... I wouldn't be great at AA, but I'd have the option.

And Sisters? Someone really wanna give a sisters player crap for making the difference when we have a white Dwarf codex? Haha, that's rich! Talk about bad allies matrix, though, we're better buds with Xenos than freaking Black Templars!

My Crons and GKs don't need allies but I will ally them forever just to see the nerd rage.

Some of us bring TAC lists. To do so, you need a solution for every occasion. Allies is a way of patching up holes in older books and makes fun lists outta new books. Daemons and CSM all day. Eldar and tau, too! Bring on all the allies!

I love allies.

I don't use them with my Tau, but that's because I've never really liked even using Kroot in my Tau lists, but there's so much cool stuff you can do now. You can now make almost any Chaos Warband and be extremely fluffy using either IG or Daemon allies. Something that has been otherwise difficult for the past 8 years or so.

I don't think allies is cheating, but like the OP I prefer to have single codex army lists. Dealing with the weaknesses of the army is more interesting and makes one a better player imo.

Course, as a Cron player, it is probably easier for me to say that.

However, there is an enormous appeal to being able to take 500-750pts of an army I don't play just to test or play models I find cool. However, over time, I've found myself back at single codex armies more often. Allies seems like a passing fad for me.