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.

Ok so after reading on this topic multiple times I want to hear peoples opinions on the matter of allies?

I made my opinion in the form of a video response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0KINwer_dc&list=UUEP0dN3phk41_1ednq0XZKg



So what is your opinion on the matter? and how do you think it could be improved or fixed?

Discuss!

Cheers to all comments

I think I've gone deaf in my right ear.

If GW removed the Battle Brothers level of alliance and made the matrix a bit more fluffy, I'd have no problem with allies.

If GW actually had the Codecies written when they made the matrix so they could examine how the various armies they haphazardly declared "battle brothers" would interact and see the genuinely broken combinations that it made possible, and cared, I think we would have gotten a very different set of allies rules.

I don't like allies. I like to have armies to have strengths and weaknesses. And........

Now if you want to collect everything one army can field you include all their allies?

It had to have helped sales.

helotaxi wrote:
If GW actually had the Codecies written when they made the matrix so they could examine how the various armies they haphazardly declared "battle brothers" would interact and see the genuinely broken combinations that it made possible, and cared, I think we would have gotten a very different set of allies rules.

It could have easily been future proofed by denying any form of allies from joining ICs and casting blessings on their allies.

I am a fan of the concept of allies but think the aforementioned limitation as well as a % cap should have been instituted.

If you keep my Traitor Guard/Chaos space Marines/Chaos Daemons, you can have whatever you want.

I think they personally need to choose a different method for the creation of allies rather than the one they have chosen, sure they could have allies still but they need more restrictions on what your allies can to in order for them to get more balanced imo..

They flat out ruined the game. Good concept, horrible execution and as such ruin everything.

 Jayden63 wrote:
They flat out ruined the game. Good concept, horrible execution and as such ruin everything.

Agreed

The idea of allies doesn't bother me much, but I think they made the matrix far too open.

If it was a nice way to expand your collection with armies which complement each other in the fluff (e.g Space Marines with Astra Militarum, Chaos daemons with CSM, Eldar with the imperium and tau but with restrictions and so on) it would work, but as it stands there are some really odd combinations allowed.

 Jayden63 wrote:
They flat out ruined the game. Good concept, horrible execution and as such ruin everything.

Exalted!



They just couldn't help themselves either, look what they've done with slates and stuff like inquisition and knights. Destroy the game to make a buck.

 scottmmmm wrote:
The idea of allies doesn't bother me much, but I think they made the matrix far too open.

If it was a nice way to expand your collection with armies which complement each other in the fluff (e.g Space Marines with Astra Militarum, Chaos daemons with CSM, Eldar with the imperium and tau but with restrictions and so on) it would work, but as it stands there are some really odd combinations allowed.

Imo, now it sounds harsh but makes sense to reinforce their "Narrative" fetish they have, but they should have said that there should be painting restrictions such as if you want to ally Eldar with the imperium they must be painted as Ulthwe for example, and this could have made sense as it could have been staged around the eye of terror, etc, etc

It sounds harsh but at least it has some ground to stand on for reinforcing their "narrative" games.

 happygolucky wrote:

 scottmmmm wrote:
The idea of allies doesn't bother me much, but I think they made the matrix far too open.

If it was a nice way to expand your collection with armies which complement each other in the fluff (e.g Space Marines with Astra Militarum, Chaos daemons with CSM, Eldar with the imperium and tau but with restrictions and so on) it would work, but as it stands there are some really odd combinations allowed.

Imo, now it sounds harsh but makes sense to reinforce their "Narrative" fetish they have, but they should have said that there should be painting restrictions such as if you want to ally Eldar with the imperium they must be painted as Ulthwe for example, and this could have made sense as it could have been staged around the eye of terror, etc, etc

It sounds harsh but at least it has some ground to stand on for reinforcing their "narrative" games.

lol rules forcing players to paint, you're adorable :p

 Crablezworth wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:

 scottmmmm wrote:
The idea of allies doesn't bother me much, but I think they made the matrix far too open.

If it was a nice way to expand your collection with armies which complement each other in the fluff (e.g Space Marines with Astra Militarum, Chaos daemons with CSM, Eldar with the imperium and tau but with restrictions and so on) it would work, but as it stands there are some really odd combinations allowed.

Imo, now it sounds harsh but makes sense to reinforce their "Narrative" fetish they have, but they should have said that there should be painting restrictions such as if you want to ally Eldar with the imperium they must be painted as Ulthwe for example, and this could have made sense as it could have been staged around the eye of terror, etc, etc

It sounds harsh but at least it has some ground to stand on for reinforcing their "narrative" games.

lol rules forcing players to paint, you're adorable :p

I knowes *puts on kawaii face*

But it would make some sort of sense and adding more restrictions so that people just don't do blatant WAAC lists imo.

I don't like them. As a Tyranid player, I don't like being hand capped for no reason beside fluff. A lot of the allies matrix is NOT fluffy. So why am I penalized without anything to compensate for it?

Other armies get to not use their weakness, and get buffs and Nids can't. No fun being at a disadvantage with a ruleset that is not balanced already.

Make the allies thing an expansion, make it seperate, outside of the core rules and it's fine. Having it be a core rules thing is just terrible. The majority of armies in my experience that utilize allies are just abortions and cynical as hell.