BOLS Article - "Why are Allies Sacred?"

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.

**Medium of Death**

I'm aware this is from December, but thought it was quite relevant given the Tyranid release without allies and no ability to compensate for that.

What say you Dakka, is it time to put allies away or let everything else come out and play? What's the justification for restricting the other optional stuff?

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/12/40k-editorial-why-are-allies-sacred.html

Why are Allies Sacred?

I have a simple question for you in this era of scary superheavies and unbreachable fortresses - why are Allies getting a pass?

OK here's something that is been rattling around my head for a while. Let's take a look at what the game looks like now, and how you build your army.

Here is what the GW Design Studio says the legal Force Organization Choices look like right now for 40K(discounting funky stuff like GW Digital Formations and Inquisitorial Allies)

But the funny thing is in all the howls at the moon about game balance, you would think the chart looks like this:

BUT IT DOESN'T!

It turns out that that convenient Allied Detachment is just as optional (or official) as Lords of War or Fortifications (see how they ALL have that word "Optional" under them),
but its funny how players who run around like chicken little regarding the slim possibility of one day just hearing that an Eldar Revenant is in the next game store over, are
happy to use that Allied Detachment to build crazy insane deathstars that min-max anything they can find across multiple codices to cram down your throat.

Yet somehow using the Allied Detachment makes them superior players and is good for the game - while having to face down superheavies or D armed fortifications that can
hurl their min-maxed deathstars off the board without breaking a sweat is bad for the game.

Intriguing...

In my experience of watching and talking to players at all skill levels here's what I've observed:

Players take Allies out of GREED

Players shun Lords of War out of FEAR

Players are still on the fence regarding Fortifications
(go read the Aquila Strongpoint/Void Shield rules - then decide)

But basically I can count the number of times on one hand I've seen an army use an Allied contingent for some reason that was done for narrative, or simple variety's sake.
Almost without exception, players take allies to shore up their own codices deficiencies and pull dirty tricks. Love to blow folks off the table with Tau Riptides, but are worried
that you may one day have to deal with Assault or Psychics? - Well we have Space Wolves Allies to help you with that...

The list of Allies shenanigans go on, but I have this funny feeling that what is really going on here isn't the arrival of superheavies or super fortifications "ruining the game".

To me it smacks of a tiny vocal shard of the player community clinging to their real ace in the hole that they use to lord their superiority over their fellow gamers - exploitation of
the Allied Detachment.

Is There a Simple Solution?
How about treating all the optional sections equally, either get rid of them ALL, or none at all. Heck you could even just set a percentage cap (say 25% like we see in the Horus Heresy books)
for a player to use in total for all the optional FOC add-ons (Allies, Lords of War, Fortifications). That gets rid of a lot of the moaning (and BS min-maxing) real fast doesn't it...

I just find it odd that while everyone wants to ban this or that - so very few are just willing to play the game like this?

But then that would level the playing field wouldn't it - and we certainly can't have that...

**Unyielding Hunger**

What's an ally? I play Tyranids and there is nothing like that listed anywhere in my codex... But yea, agreed. I hear about a ton of people who ally for just getting that one thing that can combo with their primary army easily. Ironically, I have no one in my local meta who allies in anything. A couple of us talk about getting allies for the fluff, but we still stick to our monocodex armies. Then again, we all seem to have taken a silent vow to beat the crap out of any of us who plays Tau, Eldar or any combination of the two, since none of us want to be jerks and ruin Mondays for the group.

**Melissia**

I've always liked Allies / Lords of War, so dunno what BoLS is talking about.

Then again I also don't really give a crap about competitive play so meh.

**EVIL INC**

The issue is not allies at all. the issue is "battle brothers". get rid of that, you get rid of the problems with allies in terms of the funky combos. You dont need to specially tailor your list to face normal infantry or a tank as heavy as a land raider because you have already taken a land raider into account in your take all comers force.
Now titans and super heavies and 9oo point ctan gods, you HAVE to tailor for to even stand a chance which throws the whole concept ofa take all comers list out the window.
sounds like someone having a hissy fit because they tried to play someone who was just able to tailor towards their revenent titan so asked to play without the optional new rules.

**kronk**

It turns out that that convenient Allied Detachment is just as optional (or official) as Lords of War or Fortifications (see how they ALL have that word "Optional" under them),
but its funny how players who run around like chicken little regarding the slim possibility of one day just hearing that an Eldar Revenant is in the next game store over, are
happy to use that Allied Detachment to build crazy insane deathstars that min-max anything they can find across multiple codices to cram down your throat.

1. Allies are in the basic rule book.
2. "some" fortifications are in the basic rule book, but the newer ones AND the fortification slot is in an expansion book.
3. Lords of War is an expansion book.

So, 1 is covered in the BRB, and 2 & 3 are not. It's not hard to see why 1 is considered "more official" and/or "more acceptable" than 2 & 3. Further, we've had 1.5 years with 1, and less than 4 months with 2 & 3.

I understand the butt-hurt of people that like A over B, but the tournament only allows C. However, I can't see how anyone can honestly not understand my 3 points above without being obtuse.

<---- I'm not saying I like allies. I don't. But just on the surface, one is "more official" than the other 2. Also, less silly than playing against the eagle shlong building or a freaking Titan.

**Angelnoob**

Couldnt agree more with this article. "Allies" is half of the reason the game is becoming unbalanced.

While the Tau and Eldar book is superior to everything else out there right now, now you have "That guy" combining the two into a super army.

It really should have never been introduced, but im sure it was money driven and money driven only.

**Spinner**

In answer to the title: 'cause Allies aren't as new. There was almost as much - if not just as much - complaining about them when they came out. They're not sacred - people have just had longer to get used to them/moved on to the next thing to complain about/enough time to figure out how to break them, depending on your point of view. If we didn't have allies, people would be complaining about That One Codex that everyone takes because it's clearly better than everything else.

Like everything else, the rules aren't perfect and they can be taken as a fun, fluffy choice.

**CalgarsPimpHand**

I think the concept of Allies, and what it can do for the game from a fluff and fun perspective, is worth keeping. Properly implemented, I don't think people would have any problems with it.

What I'd do is, first, virtually get rid of Battle Brothers on the Allies matrix. Maybe get rid of it entirely on the matrix. It should be predominately for cases where you're allying with your own codex, or a supplement for your own codex. Fluff-wise the level of coordination Battle Brothers describes makes no sense almost anywhere in the game. Even within the Imperium, like Space Marines and Imperial Guard, or two different marine chapters, the two armies would not be integrated within each other's units, working perfectly in tandem.

Next, don't give the Allies their own Force Organization Chart. People abuse it to open up more heavy or fast attack slots, and codexes that can't take Allies at all (Tyranids), codexes that can't ally with themselves to get that 4th heavy support unit, or players that choose not to use Allies, are screwed by this. The FOC is ostensibly there to keep forces balanced. So if you want to take Allies, you should have to use up slots in your primary detachment's FOC to do so.

These two changes would eliminate the two main abuses of Allies that I see (crazy combos through Battle Brothers, opening up extra FOC slots) without impacting anyone's ability to put together fun/fluffy Allied forces if they want. And that was the point GW, right? Right? Not making it super easy and competitively necessary so people would start new armies?

**Iron_Captain**

I actually really like the allies as they are now.
It allows for some extra cheese, yes, but it also allows for very fun and fluffy combinations.
I mostly like the allies matrix as it is now. It is very fluffy. The only weird thing is that the Tau are battle brother with the Eldar and SM.

**Makumba**

If it werent for ally my IG would be in an even worse position then they are now . Ally can give me melee support , my codex doesn't have . Anti psyker tech,which my codex doesn't have . Divination , +2sv tank characters for my IG blob . fearless and invs without buying fortifications . They make my army more flexible , when without the ally ,formations and LoW It wouldn't make sense to even bring them to our store .

**ALEXisAWESOME**

While Taudar seem to dominate the tournament scene, the tournament scene itself it but a small percentage gamers. I don't like being called 'Greedy' because i take Eldar allies with my Dark Eldar and it wasn't just to fit in some Wave Serpents. I wanted Karandras to fit into a unit with Drazhar (LOLZ), that's all. I don't usually play competitively and i don't play for cheese, i wanted to start an eldar army but couldn't bring myself to buy an ENTIRE force, allies let me dip my toe in. Isn't it funny how most of the OP combo's come in when armies ally with the current OP armies? IG with Blood Angles is fine, but Blood Angles plus a Tau broadside fire base is suddenly greedy? Allies aren't the problem here, unbalanced armies are. If no army was inherently much better then anohter do you think we would see as many combos?

**Red Viper**

I'm not a fan of allies, I hope tournament organizers start looking at them also.

Besides the shenanigans, there's also just so many rules to keep up on. I think allies was just a trick to get people to buy more books/models.

**squidhills**

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.

**Wayniac**

While I agree with the article, the issue is that you can't arbitrarily decide. If you turn up to a game shop against a random opponent and inform them they can't use allies, and they have let's say a Taudar army, it's you who is at fault.

Like everything in the game, house rules and gentleman's agreements not to use game-breaking things (allies, Lords of War, etc.) is fine in a gaming club where you know all of your opponents, and not acceptable in the more common scenario of going to the local game shop with your army in tow and playing an impromptu game against someone else who did the same.

**SRSFACE**

I am sure the allies matrix came into being benign enough at GW Headquarters. "Hey, what happens when you have multiple armies? Some people really like our models, you know. Giving them rules to field them together would be a good thing!" it's a sentiment we should be able to get behind. It was just poorly implemented.

GW? Poorly implemented rules? Get out of town.

**DarknessEternal**

Because no one wants to take responsibility for the fact that it takes at least two people to play the game.

Instead of blaming themselves as narcissistic megalomaniacs, they blame the completely neutral and defenseless rules.

**Wayniac**

DarknessEternal wrote:
Because no one wants to take responsibility for the fact that it takes at least two people to play the game.

Instead of blaming themselves as narcissistic megalomaniacs, they blame the completely neutral and defenseless rules.

The problem is that the rules are claimed to be balanced to use in pick-up games and not require discussion beforehand with "no allies, no forgeworld". The only discussion is intended to be how many points you want to play, and maybe the type of terrain or mission. Again, blaming the rules is perfectly valid when you are playing against whoever happens to be at the game store on a Tuesday night (or whenever "miniatures night" is), because you can't be expected to work out specifics and restrictions for a random game against a random player. Not so for a group of mates playing in a club where everyone knows each other and can agree on "club rules". I sometimes really wish I had a gaming club to be a part of instead of having to rely on pick up games at a game store for just that reason.

**ZebioLizard2**

Do not remove my daemon battle brothers again, I already had them split and removed before.

I don't care if there's a specific rule JUST to say CSM and CD can ally, you already ripped half the units from the Chaos codex and prevented me from using them for two editions, I'd be pretty depressed to go BACK to that time.

**Psienesis**

The Ally concept is fine because, let's face it, armies work together all the time in 40K fiction, video games, and everything else.

The execution, though, has left something to be desired.

**DarknessEternal**

WayneTheGame wrote:

The problem is that the rules are claimed to be balanced to use in pick-up games and not require discussion beforehand with "no allies, no forgeworld". The only discussion is intended to be how many points you want to play, and maybe the type of terrain or mission.

You may want to re-read your sixth edition rulebook. That is the opposite of what it claims. The sixth edition rulebook consistently and continually states that there are no standards aside from what the two players agree to.

As just one example: "The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the
relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either
adapt the army lists or use their own systern as they wish." - pg 108

**EVIL INC**

yes, house rules have always been acknowledged.

**Crablezworth**

If I could narrow down the main thing I miss from 5th and that was one army fighting another. One.

I don't care for allies and I wish the allies matrix wasn't in the core rules, but an expansion like planetsrike ect..

**Jimsolo**

This article, even if it makes good points, is written in such a churlish voice that it's almost impossible not to be put off by it. I actually started to write a response detailing why I disagreed, but when I went back to get quotes, eventually I realized that the core point is one I agree with.

Seriously, though, this reads like a high school essay. It's obnoxious to the point of toxicity.

**BlaxicanX**

ITT:

"Waaaah why do competitive players use the things that they complain about."

Because they want to win.

**Dakkamite**

Aside from things like the previously mentioned Daemons + Chaos Marines, not a big fan of allies.

That said, I could get behind something like;

~Allied units use up slots from primary detachment, cannot make up part of your core HQ + two Troops, must have more points/slots of primary than allied
~To field allies, one HQ and one Troop must also be from that army
~A simplified and more lenient allied matrix. Less CtA, DA and BB, way, way more AoC

**BoomWolf**

Yes, allies are OPTIONAL.

So is codex space marines, farseers, fusion blasters and drop pods.

The writer is trying to spin the "you may" meaning of optional, to "expansion" meaning, even though the latter makes no sense.

EVERYTHING is optional. ffs get on with the program.

And I dont even own allies, or superheavies, or even basic fotrifications. but people like these who go "this is optional, so I say you cant!" are pissing me off.
Seriously, its arguing that a perfectly legal army is not because you don't like facing it.
Well guess what-I dont like facing old nids. did it make them any less legal?

Maybe I should have said that the "temegant brood makes tervigon troops" is optional too.

**AesSedai**

Allies was a blow against balance. GW is all about pushing models. The game is going in one direction. I know it sounds extreme but I expect that at some point the FOC system will be replaced. It doesn't help move stock.

Allies
Double FOC
Fortifications
Escalation
Lords of war
Dataslates

Fun ideas, but undisputedly bad for game balance.

**Dakkamite**

Seriously, its arguing that a perfectly legal army is not because you don't like facing it.

Nobodies obliged to play against anything in the game.

I refuse games against hard tournament lists for instance, even if theres noone else to play again. I'm well within my rights to do this, the 'legality' of the list in question has nothing to do with it

**AlmightyWalrus**

BlaxicanX wrote:
ITT:

"Waaaah why do competitive players use the things that they complain about."

Because they want to win.

They generally don't use double FoC though, which is also in the BRB. All the article is trying to do is to illustrate the double standard that exists.

**Shandara**

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').