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.

squidhills wrote:
Battle brothers needs to die. It permits players to field armies that have strengths and no corresponding weaknesses. It exists solely to be exploited by the kinds of people who shouldn't be allowed to interact with other human beings in the first place.

Make Allies of Convenience the best ally relationship available. That would clear up a lot of the worst abuses.

Adding an army point % restriction would help a little, making allies take up FOC slots from the main detachment would help a little, but dragging Battle Brothers into the street and putting two in the back of its head would do so much more.

Yep. I like allies because they allow fluffy armies and allow using models from an army you have not enough models for to form a full independent force. However, I really dislike how allies have be come a mandatory WAAC crutch.

I couldn't decide on which army to start, so I bought stuff that I liked the look of and LO! they be allies.

Allies provide a lot of options to make lore-oriented armies, as well as flat out more customization.

I get that people hate minmaxing, but that's not really caused by allying so much as it is by bad codex designs.

 Melissia wrote:
Allies provide a lot of options to make lore-oriented armies, as well as flat out more customization.

Yep, this is a good thing and why allies would stay. However, you don't need battle brother level alliance for that.

I get that people hate minmaxing, but that's not really caused by allying so much as it is by bad codex designs.

Kinda. But battle brothers mean that units and characters from different armies (possibly written by different designers, years apart) can buff each other, creating silly powerful combos. Sure, in theory it would be possible for designers to take that in account, but it becomes really difficult. GW is not that great balancing within a single codex, and with this level of alliance they would have to consider all possible combinations different alliances could produce.

Yep, this is a good thing and why allies would stay. However, you don't need battle brother level alliance for that.

But that kills most non marine ally more or less , because you wouldn't be able to protect the ally HQ . Maybe demons could pull it off and that is it , everything else would die too fast , if it wasn't meq or teq.

But battle brothers mean that units and characters from different armies (possibly written by different designers, years apart) can buff each other, creating silly powerful combos.

You think that when Kelly wrote the DE codex he didn't want the baron to join the jetseers?

You can use ally units to protection the ally HQ, though.

I loved how Allies were done in 3rd Ed in the Daemonhunter and Witch Hunter codexes: 1 FoC, limited list of available allied units, primary army must fill minimum list requirements.

Using those rules, I use to run a "Tri-Ordo" list based around a core Space Marine "Death Watch" force (OX), allied Sisters (OH), and allied Grey Knights (OM), all in one FoC. The list was fun, fluffy, competetive, and fairly balanced, which I played on and off through 4th and 5th, and only sidelined it when the Sisters got there crappy mini-Dex.

Now, I can take Space Marines (primary), Eldar (allied), Inquisition (detachment), Tau (dataslate), and a Superheavy (Lord of War), all in a legal 40k list composed of 4 FoCs and an Apoc unit. Balance? Not do much.

SJ

Makumba wrote:

But that kills most non marine ally more or less , because you wouldn't be able to protect the ally HQ . Maybe demons could pull it off and that is it , everything else would die too fast , if it wasn't meq or teq.

So how do those HQ units survive in their own armies then?

You think that when Kelly wrote the DE codex he didn't want the baron to join the jetseers?

Considering that it was written way before the alliance rules existed, that is pretty damn likely.

 Melissia wrote:
I get that people hate minmaxing, but that's not really caused by allying so much as it is by bad codex designs.

No, it's an inherent problem with allies. Even if the codices are all balanced (or at least much more balanced than they are now) it's still a basic design principle that armies should have their own strengths and weaknesses. If I play Tau I have an army that is awesome at shooting, but hopelessly weak if I ever get charged. If I play Ultramarines I have an army that is decent at everything and has a chance in every situation, but will always be second-best. If I play DE I have an army that is incredibly fast and capable of delivering a nasty alpha strike, but completely lacking in durability and long-term power. In all of those situations I have to use good list building and tactics to take advantage of my strengths while doing the best I can to keep my weaknesses from being fatal ones.

If you add allies that variation disappears entirely. Now my Tau can take melee allies to cover their weakness in assault, and if I take something cheap like an IG blob squad or horde of boyz I can do it without making too many sacrifices in my shooting core. The end result is a game with a lot of very similar lists that always pick the best units from multiple armies and are good at everything.

 Shandara wrote:
Not using the double FOC is usually a practical consideration though (at least if you want to play 3-4 games per day in a 'competitive' tournament').

Err, what? How does playing a 2000 point game with double FOC take longer than playing a 2000 point game with a "no double FOC" house rule? The only way this makes sense is if you're talking about playing games significantly below 2000 points (IOW, not just 1999 points) where double FOC doesn't apply at all. But then you're no longer talking about house rules about whether or not you're going to use double FOC, you're just playing a 1500 point game.

Makumba wrote:
But that kills most non marine ally more or less , because you wouldn't be able to protect the ally HQ . Maybe demons could pull it off and that is it , everything else would die too fast , if it wasn't meq or teq.

Who cares about protecting the ally HQ? It's just another unit to be expended when necessary. And there are plenty of armies that can take HQs that don't need to join their allies. In fact, pretty much every xenos army can do it, and the only time you care about having your HQ join an allied squad is when you're trying to construct some kind of death star.

Considering that it was written way before the alliance rules existed, that is pretty damn likely.

Remeber when ward said that they were planing to put flyers in to 5th ed from the very start , but the models for most factions weren't ready ? Or that work on a new edition starts more then a year , before the last one ends or how codex due to printing are ready 2-3 months , before they actualy see stores .

And last but not least how kelly loves his eldar ?

So how do those HQ units survive in their own armies then?

They hide , if they aren't meq statlined . If you would want to take some eldar for your tau army , you wouldn't be able to take a farseer , which then would make taking eldar as ally questionable .

And before you ask why wouldn't .
if he can't join tau units he has to sit with the 3 man jet biker unit and that is too vunerable , also the jetbikers start in reserv so you wouldn't have the seer on those most important turns of the game .
If you took a wave serpent and dires for him to hide , then the ally section costs too much and you either have to skip the WK or you have to cut your own unit , which makes taking the seer more of a problem , then a gain .
etc

But you seem to play marines . For you that is easy . Take a some white scar bikers ally with a chaptermaster or captin and it works . Sure not as good as when you add your primary force HQs on bikes to give your IH chapter master with IWND eternalshield/TH scouting , but one can't have it all ey ?

Makumba wrote:
if he can't join tau units he has to sit with the 3 man jet biker unit and that is too vunerable , also the jetbikers start in reserv so you wouldn't have the seer on those most important turns of the game .
If you took a wave serpent and dires for him to hide , then the ally section costs too much and you either have to skip the WK or you have to cut your own unit , which makes taking the seer more of a problem , then a gain .
etc

I fail to see how this is a problem. Maybe instead of taking minimum troops + HQ to get an overpowered combo you want to include you should consider taking a complete allied force?

Makumba wrote:

So how do those HQ units survive in their own armies then?

They hide , if they aren't meq statlined .

(snip)

But you seem to play marines . For you that is easy . Take a some white scar bikers ally with a chaptermaster or captin and it works . Sure not as good as when you add your primary force HQs on bikes to give your IH chapter master with IWND eternalshield/TH scouting , but one can't have it all ey ?

I don't know where you've gotten the idea that marines don't bother hiding their ICs in units. MEQ statline, TEQ statline, whatever, it's going in a squad somewhere to protect it. Every army is the same in that regard (even Tyranids can hide their Hive Tyrants in Tyrant Guard units). So you whichever army you're using as your ally, they should be able to protect their own HQ without joining units from the primary detachment.

Even when marines ally with each other, the only reason to attach your allied HQ to a unit from your primary detachment is to pull some kind of shenanigans with combining rules, which is what you really seem concerned with, and what we should be eliminating. Fluff-wise and rule-wise, your allied HQ should be just fine being attached to units from its own detachment.

All of this:

If you would want to take some eldar for your tau army , you wouldn't be able to take a farseer , which then would make taking eldar as ally questionable... (snip)... If he can't join tau units he has to sit with the 3 man jet biker unit and that is too vunerable , also the jetbikers start in reserv so you wouldn't have the seer on those most important turns of the game. If you took a wave serpent and dires for him to hide , then the ally section costs too much and you either have to skip the WK or you have to cut your own unit , which makes taking the seer more of a problem , then a gain .

....is a result of you trying to max out the cheese of Taudar. You don't want an Eldar ally, you want cheese: you want a Farseer to buff your Tau, a Wraighknight to max out your monstrous creatures, and a minimum size squad of jetbikes just to get by the troop tax. Your examples actually support everyone else's point - GW should get rid of Battle Brothers. Take an allied detachment that works as an ally of convenience, or don't take one at all.

 Peregrine wrote:
Even if the codices are all balanced (or at least much more balanced than they are now) it's still a basic design principle that armies should have their own strengths and weaknesses.

And by allying you're diluting your strengths to make up for a weakness. It's still balanced when done properly.