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.

There are actually different types of ally, as a leaked picture of the rulebook says. "Begrudging allies" or whatever they're called, have different rules. I'm pretty sure area of affect things don't cross-over unless you're "brothers in arms", i.e. fellow imperials.
So say hello to FNP and FC blob guard

I don't believe so. It seems to be a part of the main rules.

I think this may bring some balance into the game. Tau could take some BA assault marines as allies to offset their vulnerability to CC. Maybe with a Librarian to give them a Psychic Hood.



Edit: hehe, Dark Eldar can ally with Tau

Allies CAN make for some fluffy, justifiable, and entertaining alliances and combos on the table top.

Allies WILL make broken combos and pretty much make a lot of armies unfun to play against.

When you could ally, all anyone saw was the most powerful choices and broken combos. No one every took penitant engines as allies, but those damn Inquistors with full table pyschic hoods and deep strike interupting shooting guys (brainfart I can't remember their names) who hung out around devi squads and russes were everywhere.

Yeah, my EC like the idea that I can actually take a Keeper of Secrets and real Damonettes again. But I'll give it all up if I never have to see Paladins hanging around Sanguinary Priests.

Edit: hehe, Dark Eldar can ally with Tau

There was indeed an alliance done in the DE book about Tau and DE where the tau called upon the mercenary services of one of the Covens...

They did their job well, fought back tyranids, and a whole bunch of other stuff that was helpful to the tau...Till they realized what they wanted in cost (people) and what they were doing to said people (It's a coven, figure it out), and when the tau decided to stop their services they turned on them and began capturing more.

Allies WILL make broken combos and pretty much make a lot of armies unfun to play against.

You mean like several now?

Yeah, my EC like the idea that I can actually take a Keeper of Secrets and real Damonettes again. But I'll give it all up if I never have to see Paladins hanging around Sanguinary Priests.

Bit scary yeah, but since they can no longer wound allocate at will they'll begin to lose a bit of their power.

Jayden63 wrote:
Yeah, my EC like the idea that I can actually take a Keeper of Secrets and real Damonettes again. But I'll give it all up if I never have to see Paladins hanging around Sanguinary Priests.

Paladins can get FNP anyway, and for cheaper than a kitted up priest, plus they'd have to take a much weaker BA HQ and troop choice.
Another "overpowered combo" that's actually pretty rubbish. If a GK player would rather have a Sanguinary Priest and a BA HQ/Troop, that's grand with me.

The only reason a Sang priest would be good is with say Terminators or Purifiers.

I still think the deadweight of the additional HQ and troop would be such a drag that it wasn't worth it, especially for a 1 wound power armour model that can be easily smashed in assault.

In answer to the title? Hell yes, in my opinion and this allies gak is just money grabbing. Before it was a case of "This is your stuff. Take what you want from here."
"But I want a Bloodthirster!"
"Then you need this instead *hands CD codex*"
"But I want Abbaddon too!"

You couldn't have both ways. Now however, GW aee actually encouraging.you to buy more books and models for your armies. If that is what they are going.to do they may as well make the main book a lot more expensive, and put every unit into the main book. Would save a lot on production costs.for them I think.

The reason I don't like it is because it allows for some cheesy gak, and to avoid an army's downfall. Daemons can be a really.good dex, just that they need to Deep Strike. If it were an objectives game they'd have.problems..But.now the solution is simply take Plague Marines and a Bastion. Dump 'em down and let your Bloodcrushers murder.

Or Dark Eldar, who are notoriously fragile, taking some nice, tough, bulky Immortals and pop a Monolith down.

Obviously I don't know how the.allies work, but there is potential for some.seriously cheesy stuff there.

Depends on the point level.

A Librarian and a couple of assault marine squads could be a decent support for any army, especially if buffed by FnP.



This does open up some nice "Count's As" options for some armies.

Gue'vesa Auxiliaries for Tau(Counts As IG)

Real looted vehicles for Orks(IG counts as Grots wearing stolen IG equipment/looted vehicles)

Phototoxin wrote:Maybe allies is an optional rule like 'with opponents consent' of 'for story driven games' etc?

They're in the rulebook, they're not house rules or whatever.

It just depends on how G.W handles allies. Because I do not want to see a unit of Terminators with the Eldar power Fortune upon them.

People thought that the 3.5 dex was good for Chaos...you guys haven't seen anything yet. Just imagine what its going to be like to fight the new Chaos dex in a few months with Daemons as allies. You gotta rememeber when they broke them off into their own dex they fixed a bunch of stuff for Daemons where they would be a stand alone army. Now you are giving them back in their better form to an army that is only going to get better.

Fateweaver standing behind Abaddon and a squad of Cult Terminators. Sounds like a lot of fun to me.

Obliterators for ranged and Crushers of Khorne for close combat...yeah thats going to be funny.

Also the Chaos Sorcerer sitting back making people Hallucinate and attack each other or just stand their while the Crushers charge them and get raped.

No this isn't going to overpowered at all....LOL

On another note I actually agree with Space Wolves and Grey Knights getting to ally because of the first battle for Armageddon. However I believe that if you choose to do this combo then the Grey Knights should not be allowed to take an Inquisitor of any kind because of Grimnars deep hatred for them.

If it were an objectives game they'd have.problems..But.now the solution is simply take Plague Marines and a Bastion

I'm sorry, but how are The Plaguebearers worse than the plague marines? They are one of the best objective holders in the entire game, plague marines are also far more expensive, and have a faux T5, rather than the true T5 plaguebearers have, along with a good inv save and FNP, and going to ground making them even harder to even remove.

The main issue daemons have is coming entirely piecemeal, with deepstriking an entire army not being so hot at all.

Of course we don't know how combat is going to work now.

That could totally change the dynamics. If everything is OP, nothing is.

For me it entirely depends upon how it is handled. Everyone knows that cherry-picking units from various codices will make your army harder so that kind of ally system will just play into the hands of the waac types who already run Crowe/Purifier/Razorback/Rifleman Dreads and similar spam lists. They will look for weaknesses within their codex and fill it with spammed allies.

In terms of fluff or even common sense allies make perfect sense. Imperial forces all fight alongside each other. Marine commanders don't say stuff like "I'm not fighting in the same force as Imperial Guard, they are not part of my codex". It is entirely logical. If it is done with care it will enhance the game and allow more options for customising units and forces to allow more fun and character.

Needless to say it will have to be done carefully. Nids for example could not reasonably ally with anyone at all, ever. Eldar would never side with Dark Eldar, Imperials with Chaos, Necrons with anyone else, etc. It is going to have to be strictly limited and carefully done.

I see Storm of Magic as a likely model, even though this allows all sorts of odd combinations.

It will be interesting for sure and it is not long now!

Doesnt that make GW the TFG? they made allies rule, they would know the consequences ( if any )

You'll be fine using allies.

Testify wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:
Yeah, my EC like the idea that I can actually take a Keeper of Secrets and real Damonettes again. But I'll give it all up if I never have to see Paladins hanging around Sanguinary Priests.

Paladins can get FNP anyway, and for cheaper than a kitted up priest, plus they'd have to take a much weaker BA HQ and troop choice.
Another "overpowered combo" that's actually pretty rubbish. If a GK player would rather have a Sanguinary Priest and a BA HQ/Troop, that's grand with me.

You do realize that a BA Librarian with Terminator armor, Stormshield and Unleashed rage compliments paladins perfectly right?

Giving the unit the ability to reroll misses with a Psychic power is awesome.

tetrisphreak wrote:

Blacksails wrote:If this rumour just so happens to be true when it drops, I might just sit out a lot of 6th ed. I'm personally not a fan of allies, not even in the slightest, regardless of whether or not my opponent is TFG, I just don't like it.

But no, you're not automatically TFG for using a rule in an edition, that's just stupid.

Sitting out of an edition based on one rule seems a little knee-jerky. But hey, if you don't enjoy the game i understand not playing. I'd suggest at least a couple games first before bowing out. God knows we don't need a mass exodus of players like when WFB 8th came out.... :-/

It might be just one rule, but it's one which affects (indeed radically changes) the rules of composition for every army, and one which seems to have been imposed without the slightest thought for its negative impact upon game balance. I'm coming to the conclusion that this edition deserves to provoke an exodus of players.

English Assassin wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:

Blacksails wrote:If this rumour just so happens to be true when it drops, I might just sit out a lot of 6th ed. I'm personally not a fan of allies, not even in the slightest, regardless of whether or not my opponent is TFG, I just don't like it.

But no, you're not automatically TFG for using a rule in an edition, that's just stupid.

Sitting out of an edition based on one rule seems a little knee-jerky. But hey, if you don't enjoy the game i understand not playing. I'd suggest at least a couple games first before bowing out. God knows we don't need a mass exodus of players like when WFB 8th came out.... :-/

It might be just one rule, but it's one which affects (indeed radically changes) the rules of composition for every army, and one which seems to have been imposed without the slightest thought for its negative impact upon game balance. I'm coming to the conclusion that this edition deserves to provoke an exodus of players.

I actually just pre-ordered 6th ed at my nearest GW, so I'll at least have the rules to peruse and maybe, just maybe, get in a game or two. Chances are won't be playing much anyways I'll be in the middle of nowhere Saskatchewan for the next forseeable future. I'll reserve my full judgement for the edition after I have the rules in hand, but so far all the rumours aren't exactly leaving a good taste in my mouth.

I didn't like allies before, and I likely won't now. We'll see what happens, but I wouldn't be surprised if I start spending more money on other game systems I've neglected.

English Assassin wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:

Blacksails wrote:If this rumour just so happens to be true when it drops, I might just sit out a lot of 6th ed. I'm personally not a fan of allies, not even in the slightest, regardless of whether or not my opponent is TFG, I just don't like it.

But no, you're not automatically TFG for using a rule in an edition, that's just stupid.

Sitting out of an edition based on one rule seems a little knee-jerky. But hey, if you don't enjoy the game i understand not playing. I'd suggest at least a couple games first before bowing out. God knows we don't need a mass exodus of players like when WFB 8th came out.... :-/

It might be just one rule, but it's one which affects (indeed radically changes) the rules of composition for every army, and one which seems to have been imposed without the slightest thought for its negative impact upon game balance. I'm coming to the conclusion that this edition deserves to provoke an exodus of players.

How many tabletop games have you been involved in the development of? Just out of curiosity.

I'm excited to be able to run a true daemonbomb list now with CSM. One squad of chaos marines with a chaos icon and a sorcerer in a rhino, drive up to midfield and wait.

Imperials - "What, they plan on taking us on with just that? How laughab- Oh dear Emperor."

Hey, Daemons might just be doable now

Grey Templar wrote:Hey, Daemons might just be doable now

The problem with allying CSM and Deamons is who's summoning rules do you use? Am I going to have to split my Keeper and three units of damonettes into two groups (first wave/second wave) and hope some drop when they are supposed to. Or can they use the summoning icons that I would have bought for generic deamons in the CSM?

One way would be really cool. The other makes it almost not worth it.

I'll be using Allies if possible.

Mainly because I've been torn between my vanilla Marines and using my Sisters of Battle, now that my opponent is using Orks - she uses my models, so I couldn't very well use my Marines while she was using them.

The idea of playing Marines and Sisters allied together is very appealing to me, if only for custom fluff reasons. It will make me very happy if it's possible in the new edition. ^_^

Edit: Somehow I confused the premise of this thread with the premise of the previous thread I posted in.

No, I don't think it makes you TFG for just using the allies rules. Why would it? It provides for some nice fluff opportunities to be played out in-game. Some combinations might be worthy of it, but that's typical of a lot of rules. They can get abused if used in the right way.

I didn't think that TFG was based on what your army composition was, though. I thought it had more to do with attitude.

Game abuse is what makes you "TFG".

Space Marines/Necrons.

Proceeding to headdesk as hard as I possibly can.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of Allies. Being able to mix IG and SM makes it feel a lot like the fluff says; an IG regiment backed up by a squad of, say, Assault Marines wouldn't be broken or OP at all, and would fill a nice gap in an IG dex; that of a fast-moving countercharge unit. IG/CSM can represent LatD again (hear that, 2nd/3rd ed veterans?).

But some combinations are just plain silly, like Marines/Dark Eldar, or Dark Angels/Necrons.

Honestly, let's face it; TFG's gonna TFG, no matter what. It was inevitable; 5th mandated MSU spam for TFG's, and now it'll probably be power combos among other things. I'm not quite sure I'd say an opponent is a TFG for just using Ally rules, but it's how he applies it, as you all have said.

+1 to application leading to TFG or not to TFG. Allied SM units is fluffy-Armageddon comes to mind with BT, Sallies and I forget the third, if there was one. Tycho and Cortez working together to snuff an Ork army. A GK libby and termie squad assisting BT to purge some witches. An IG army getting a tactical squad and captain to assist. Daemons, traitor guard and CSM in any combination. These all work. Even Eldar/DEldar if Harlies are involved (eh...). Others...Running Draigo and Paladins to help out a Cron army....Go away. Your kind doesn't belong.

Yeah it's not just as simple as "combine this army with that army". There will be rules to limit the interactions, pretty sure the things outside of troops and HQ will be pretty damn hard to field in masse.....

I would go with the theory that the allies rule is just a ploy to sell people a second army(or more) not deliberately a plan to bring balance to the game.

timetowaste85 wrote:+1 to application leading to TFG or not to TFG. Allied SM units is fluffy-Armageddon comes to mind with BT, Sallies and I forget the third, if there was one. Tycho and Cortez working together to snuff an Ork army. A GK libby and termie squad assisting BT to purge some witches. An IG army getting a tactical squad and captain to assist. Daemons, traitor guard and CSM in any combination. These all work. Even Eldar/DEldar if Harlies are involved (eh...). Others...Running Draigo and Paladins to help out a Cron army....Go away. Your kind doesn't belong.

The problem with justifying taking some of these combo for "fluff" reasons is that there are two sides to a story. The good guys and the bad guys. Sure on Armegeddon three SM factions showed up to fight orks. But If someone is across the table with Tau, where were they during Armegeddon? Suddenly, your fluffy army loose all fluff because the battle is no longer fluffy and the whole thing just becomes picking and choosing the strongest aspects of both SM armies.

For a planned out battle, yeah, go for it. But just because your bringing an ally list that is fluffy in your mind, the whole thing may no longer appear that way depending on what is on the other side. Team battles have had this issue for years. But most often you just have to play with the figures you have so that a real game can actually happen. Its just the way it is.

My biggest worry is that for every good "fluffy" allied forces there are going to be 10 of them that are just pulling power. I don't want to see Thunderwolves with furious charge. I don't want to see plasma/melta vets in a Cron army. But that is what is going to happen.