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.

Invisible Jesus wrote:

Oh dear God...You really need to take a reality check, because if you really believe that Allies "are simply a mechanic inserted by GW top let us play the game and start small armies that eventually turn into full armies" , you are clearly naive and deluded. The reason they have added Allies is to get people to buy more models and increase profits. It's as simple as that. Like a lot of the new rules in 6th edition, they are designed solely to make money: Flyers, Allies and recently the way they have FAQ'd a lot of special codex rules out of existence (see the Lumbering Behemen scratch) are all rule changes with the sole purpose of shifting the more expensive models and a wider variety of models.

"Generally, you should use allies to cover your armies weaknesses or to add punch to your list." Wow, do you work for GW? Sounds like it. That, or you are incredibly naive.
Why play - say for example - Imperial Guard or Tau if you don't like their weakness in CC? Go play something else, rather than attempting to patch them up with Allies. You are ruining the character of the army, and what's worse, if Allies becomes the norm it's not fair on the rest of us who aren't WAAC or TFG and who just want to play to our armies strengths, not patch it up with pure cheese.

Of course, Allies can give us cool ideas too like Traitor Guard, Tau Human Auxillaries, Daemons and Chaos Tzeentch armies, Inquistion forcs etc etc. But you just know this is going to be impossible to regulate or prove and it's going to spiral into TFG bs where it's all WAAC and no one can be remotely competitive without allies.

I wish people would wake up and see the truth under the 'cinematic narrative experience' (haha, yeah right), but most people won't. Bunch of fething TFG who should've been drowned at birth if you ask me....

You played an IG parking lot in 5th didn't you? Or a BA mech list, or a Purifier spam list, or maybe a Razor/Long Fang spam list in 5th I would guess. Its not so easy to win anymore is it?

I think alot of people are getting a little bit heated in this argument. There's no need for anyone to get personal or start insulting.
In any case, I don't see the reason the OP is being insulted for discussing competitive tactics. I don't play tournaments, and I build lists purely for fluff, but that doesn't mean competitive play should be shunned. There is an entire scene of people who play competetetively against one another. That doesn't mean they're TFG, just that they like that gaming style.

The OP made this thread for a discussion on a specific tactic. Perhaps it's time to honor his intentions and actually talk about the thread.

Invisible Jesus wrote:
Oh dear God...You really need to take a reality check

Right back at ya.

Invisible Jesus wrote:
Why play - say for example - Imperial Guard or Tau if you don't like their weakness in CC? Go play something else, rather than attempting to patch them up with Allies. You are ruining the character of the army

Yes, because they don't do it on the fluff ALL THE TIME?

Heck, some of them (Tau and Eldar the prime examples) FAVOR doing it whenever possible, although Eldar tend to trick others to do stuff they cant, and while Tau generally prefer to keep it "clean" by avoiding melee-they got no issue others doing it for them. (not to mention I can make conversion to make anything I want into an "experimental weapon/suit")
And as for the IG-the entire freaking concept of the IG fluff is to hold the line until someone better trained and equipped shows up to eradicate the enemy. (Wait, blood angles don't count as "better trained and equipped unit of the Imperium of man?")

And if I patch up my tau's weak melee with some blood angles-so what? I still paid points for it, and that means I got myself better melee from your average Tau, but i gave up some of my shooting to do so. its a fair trade, it cost me, and the "Tau's BA" are not as effective as true BA-they have limitations placed on them.

No, I dont like how Tau have nothing at all to respond at melee, but I DO love anything else about them. and I would very much like some hard-hitting melee units to be used as meatshields for the rest of the army, as any sane tactician would do. (and tau ARE sane)
Yes, I like the MotF to walk around with that nasty conversion beamer to back up my broadsides, yes I want that thunderfire cannon to slow down enemy units, and yes I want an ironclad to serve as a roadblock to interrupt enemy advancement, but the list is still a TAU list, not a marine list. because it has suit squads JSJ around, and broadsides nuking tanks from afar, and FW in fish going FoF on targets of opportunity and setting up to take objectives at endgame as the main force, and just a few marine units to back up that Tau way of war.

Invisible Jesus wrote:
and what's worse, if Allies becomes the norm it's not fair on the rest of us who aren't WAAC or TFG and who just want to play to our armies strengths, not patch it up with pure cheese.

Allies are not "more power" they are "more options". if more options was equal power, the vanilla marines would have been the strongest marine codex, and knights/wolves/BA seem to be widely considered stronger. why? because despite having less options, the things they got have better inner working, while vanilla marines just pile up many types of units with a total lack of synergy. it's not weaker statlines or higher costs-its the fact every unit is a stand-alone, not a part of some greater scheme.

You cant claim allies are cheesy when wraithwing/necron airforce and draigowing are widely considered superior lists to anything anyone else has cooked up. and guess what-they are pure codex lists.
each "cheesy" alliance is throwing in units that are ALREADY cheesy as hell in their own codex, anything you can "splice" to your army to make a cheesy list you might as well take as you main army and spam just that and get even more cheese.


I'd much rather face any alliance then the mono-codex spam lists that just throw masses of underpriced units at my face. at least I would actually have a 40k game on my hand and not a "level 999 space invaders"



As for HOW to use allies, and the allied "tax" units, I personally find that the best way to handle it is to only take allies that you actually WANT to "tax" units themselves, you want the HQ and troops, not only the FA/Elite/HS. otherwise its a point sink that will hurt your list.
If we return to my Tau+SM example, I WANT to have a MotF as he fits in as a "broadside commander", I WANT sniper scouts as scoring units that can hit from afar, the other things I want are just additional options that the things I wanted anyway unlocks for me, and fit in the same army concept just as good.

I agree with your last point. Troops in themselves are often actually quite effective. For example, I personally wouldn't mind two raiders with wychs and an archon running up to help out my Tau. For competetive play though, I can see the benefit of the FoC multipliers stated by the OP.

You played an IG parking lot in 5th didn't you?

Nope, hybrid list same as I play now.

Or a BA mech list,

No, don't like BA's since fluff has been crapped on since Angels of Death back in the 90's.

or a Purifier spam list

No, but my friend does and they are easy to beat with Guard actually...

or maybe a Razor/Long Fang spam list in 5th I would guess

No, since I have been a Dark Angels player since 2nd edition, i've never liked Space Wolves :p

Its not so easy to win anymore is it?

Hilarious how you think you have me all sussed out just from a few posts on an internet forum full of TFG's. lol You lost the game.

Invisible Jesus wrote:

You played an IG parking lot in 5th didn't you?

Nope, hybrid list same as I play now.

Or a BA mech list,

No, don't like BA's since fluff has been crapped on since Angels of Death back in the 90's.

or a Purifier spam list

No, but my friend does and they are easy to beat with Guard actually...

or maybe a Razor/Long Fang spam list in 5th I would guess

No, since I have been a Dark Angels player since 2nd edition, i've never liked Space Wolves :p

Its not so easy to win anymore is it?

Hilarious how you think you have me all sussed out just from a few posts on an internet forum full of TFG's. lol You lost the game.

Just pointing it out, you're the one who came into the thread throwing accusations of TFG at pretty much anyone who doesn't agree with you. You pretty much lost by default.

And, again, for the record: wanting to win is not being TFG. Nor is it WAAC.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
wanting to win is not being TFG. Nor is it WAAC.

I agree with this.

Playing to win is fun, no one likes to lose.

You can have a fun game in which you lose, but some wins are nice too.

 Kaldor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
dude this means everything you ever take in an army is making you TFG , unless your taking spawn class units . How is it possible to make an army with units that dont make it easier to win , do you load up your GK with psi lancers and stuff ?
ally are in official rules , they are as illega/WAAC/TFG as taking a Lemman Russ in an IG army or terminators in DA/GK.

Any army built purely to win with no thought given to theme or aesthetic fits that category.

There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line.

You us the terms 'abusive' and the 'line', these are your mental constructs, not the rest of gamers or GW itself. Using the allies system to pick good units is not abusive as it does not bend/break rules or use loopholes, it is just using the rules.

I personally ama theme/fluff player, but i have no problem playing against winning focused gamers as winning is not a priority for me.

Everybody wants to win, its a game lets be honest. The thing to look at here is that if you come in knowing that you have a great list and no one ever beats you your really missing out. If you never lose its time to put that list away for tournaments or unless someone wants to tryout a list against it. By sticking to the same style your going to either have everyone you play with build lists just to beat you or quit playing with you, and now where is the fun in that, neither of you will end up learning anything other than how to better kill this one guy :/.

Invisible Jesus wrote:
lol You lost the game.

I Lost The Game!!!

( Someone out there will no what I'm talking about.)

Pre P.S. I'm just going to act as though this argument is happening somewhere else.

In reference to th thoughts on allies being used to fill holes in an army or play to its strengths, sometimes you can do both.

Going off of my previous mention of DE, if I took a Tau list that focused heavily on Skimmers and battlesuits; if I took DE allies consisting of an archon, 1-2 units of wychs in raiders, then depending on how much of my allies I wanted, I could take some blaster-born in a venom, scourges jumping alongside my suits, and then either a void raven for some flyer power, or a ravaged for the extra Dark lances.

This list fits very neatly into my theme of a mobile flying army, and so is going to have plenty of synergy with my forces. On top of that, it actually covers a few holes that make this Tau list less competetive than its hybrid cousins.
Firstly, Dark Lances. This de list has an abundance of antitank weapons. Whilst Tau are still the guns of S10, by being mobile, I've had to sacrifice those precious Broadsides. Now I have more AT than I could dream of without having to hold back to defend some static units.
Secondly, the ever present weakness to cc. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think wychs and an archon are going to do a pretty reasonable job of chewing up enemy units in base to base.
Finally, because I now have so much AT, my battlesuits don't need to lug around those heavy twin MPs. No, I can fully devote them to blowing away meqs. Twin plasma with a targeting array, anyone?

Pro P.S. I haven't really sat down long to think about the actual competetive nature of this example. For that reason, if you decide that it seems a little Waac, then I've probably decided the same thing and will keep it locked away for competetive games. If not, then sadly I still won't be using it, because I don't own any DE!

Personally I've not used allies yet, I haven't because they don't either fit my armies fluff or theme.

Although I am now planning to take some Khorne Daemons to add to my World Eaters army, so I will be taking some Bloodletters, Flesh Hounds and possibly some converted Blood Crushers and probably a Herald to cover the HQ. I'm doing this because it's fluffy and a bit of fun for larger games.

I'm kind of in the same camp as Kaldor, as I've found that most people I've played who are using the allies matrix are not using it for fluff, narrative, theme or even fun. They are using it to create what can only be described as OP or 'roflstomp' armies in an attempt to table/win at all cost.

Don't get me wrong, if your army has a glaring weakness and you want to plug it with something, then thats fine in my books, it makes sense to do so and you are quite entitled to do so but I'd prefer it if there was at least some theme and thought behind rather than just 'Cause I want to win!'

As I explained to a friend a few weeks back, the Tau saw a glaring weakness, 'We can't do CC' so they went out and forged an alliance with Kroot. Problem solved.

It's not unreasonable for any other army to have the common sense to do this, I would just like it if the allies table made a bit more sense, as some of the combinations are really just there to be abused in some cases.

Just my 0.02 USD, but me and my friends I usually play with, all play for fun/theme etc, none of us are really that competitive compared to some others we know/play against, so I guess my opinion is a bit skewed.

Well, fluff wise, Tau are the only army WITH common sense!

I would not say that.

IG mostly has common sense, unless you are an officer (who gives out ranks there damnit?), they are fully aware that they are 99% going to die if combat rises, but they fight anyway, buying time for civilians to get out of trouble and delaying the enemy until the elite forces come to save the day.

They work on simplified and rational tactics, that require little training or equipment, as they HAVE little time to train and little funds for equipment.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
wanting to win is not being TFG. Nor is it WAAC.

I agree with this.

Playing to win is fun, no one likes to lose.

You can have a fun game in which you lose, but some wins are nice too.

A wise man once said: "There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line."

That is all you need to know.

Allies "can" be alright, but for anyone who is taking into account their opponent's fun...I would suggest this. Take a look at your allies, and think if they can be really justified in the standard lore. I wouldn't even put Necrons and BA in this list, as that is ridiculous and should be retcon'd....but as long as your allies SEEM like they could happen I'm down for it. I hate it though when someone runs allies that make no sense, as I play the game to imagine the narrative and a real scene in the 40k world unfolding. If the enemy team makes no sense, than it renders the game boring and lame from my perspective. All I say is when considering allies, take people with that perspective into consideration.

To those in the thread who have made that tired old "I can do it because it's in the rules" line, allow me to point out a couple of extreme examples from the past:

- In the RT Space Marine list there was no miminum amount for troop squads, and you could spend up to 1000 points on off table support no matter the points level being played. As a result you could theorectically build an "army" consisting of the bare minimum amount of character models and load up the rest of the points on upgraded vortex and/or virus missles. the end result was a game that ended on turn one. It would literally take you much longer to set up the game than play it.

-In 2nd Edition one could build and Eldar army that consisted of nothing but psychers, jet bikes, wraithguard, and warp spiders. (all troops that were notoriously hard to kill in that edition) No normal 40k army would stand a chance against that.

But most people did not resort to such game breaking hyjinx. There is such a thing as sportsmanship after all. Just because it's "legal" under the rules does not make it right. Far too many players loose sight of that simple fact. As for me, I actually don't enjoy playing a game were my opponent is not having any fun at all. Don't get me wrong. I like winning and I play to win. But there is a limit.

 Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:
Allies "can" be alright, but for anyone who is taking into account their opponent's fun...I would suggest this. Take a look at your allies, and think if they can be really justified in the standard lore. I wouldn't even put Necrons and BA in this list, as that is ridiculous and should be retcon'd....but as long as your allies SEEM like they could happen I'm down for it. I hate it though when someone runs allies that make no sense, as I play the game to imagine the narrative and a real scene in the 40k world unfolding. If the enemy team makes no sense, than it renders the game boring and lame from my perspective. All I say is when considering allies, take people with that perspective into consideration.

Like how i came so close to making a White Scars//Dark Eldar army.
Know i play Tau. I say the white scars and Tau of the K'tal jungle fighters where in battle when the orks came to the planet and they forged an uneasy alliance. But after feeirce fighting and a Tau commander taking a shoota for the Master of the forge(he always leads my force) they forged a fierce alliance. As long as the tau stay out of a certain region of space, they will not remain Aggresive towards them. to the point where the MOTF has taken to going to battle with firewarriors(the black sun filter and Beamer combo is helpful)
OR if im playing imperial armies, I'm always a traitor.

Its always a MotF that joins up with Tau isn't it?

My own (yet to be built, but already decided) allied force for the Tau is also a SM force led by a MotF, who got labeled as chaos heretic along with a few of his techmarines and some scouts from his chapter (unjustfully so, he was innocent), so they ran away with a ship they managed to salvage, and made a new "chapter", calling themselves "The Drifters", and operated outside of imperial command yet still targeted chaos and enemies of mankind. (they also began recruiting and developed a strict "technology only, no psykers, no arcane nonsense, pure science" code)
Eventually they encountered the Tau and took refuge in their territory as a staging ground for their anti-chaos operations (the tau didn't mind), the love of technology and distrust to psykers they share made it easy to get along and with time they began to set up trade for basic resources, and later on for spares and even weapons and ammo, eventually beginning to preform joint millitary action against various targets, the Drifters helping the tau defend against chaos, DE, orks and tyrnids while the Tau hiding them from the eyes of the imperium.

 Kaldor wrote:
No, the main reason for including allies should be your armies theme, or to use extra models in your collection, or to use a force that you've started collecting but haven't got enough points for a standalone army yet.

People who use allies to gain a tabletop advantage by safeguarding their armies weakness or exploiting a powerful combo are TFG, and should be avoided where possible.

dude, you play GK. you shouldn't go around calling people TFG all willy nilly.

Invisible Jesus wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
wanting to win is not being TFG. Nor is it WAAC.

I agree with this.

Playing to win is fun, no one likes to lose.

You can have a fun game in which you lose, but some wins are nice too.

A wise man once said: "There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line."

That is all you need to know.

Another wise man once said: "There's no such thing as a 'TFG list', it all depends on what context it's in."

As a side note, what list using allies is so brokenly overpowered that the guy playing it surely has to be TFG?

On a closing note, please, for the love of God, stop calling completely legal lists "abusive". Following all the rules, without even trying to bend some of them in one's favour, is hardly abusive, is it?

Invisible Jesus wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
dude this means everything you ever take in an army is making you TFG , unless your taking spawn class units . How is it possible to make an army with units that dont make it easier to win , do you load up your GK with psi lancers and stuff ?
ally are in official rules , they are as illega/WAAC/TFG as taking a Lemman Russ in an IG army or terminators in DA/GK.

Any army built purely to win with no thought given to theme or aesthetic fits that category.

There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line.

Oh boy you must hate tournament players. How DARE we try to actually win a game! .... Allies are not a TFG move they are simply a mechanic inserted by GW top let us play the game and start small armies that eventually turn into full armies. Unless your tyranids in which case buy more gaunts...Generally you should use allies to cover your armies weaknesses or to add punch to your list.

a long and silly summation of what I said

That was my point. You buy a commisar and squad of guardmen to add hydras to your list.... this eventually turns into a whole army sounds like everyone wins to me. If the cost bothers you then don't spend the money. There aren't GW employees forcing you to buy models you choose to.

All the special rules create unnecessary complications in the rules.

No your not. The TAU already have allies in the fluff they are called Kroot. To add to that there is fluff allowing for tau auxilliary allies so there you go.


text removed.
Reds8n

It'd be better for all concerned if we could stay calm and polite please folks. Really no need for insults or digs at other posters.

Thanks.

Invisible Jesus wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
dude this means everything you ever take in an army is making you TFG , unless your taking spawn class units . How is it possible to make an army with units that dont make it easier to win , do you load up your GK with psi lancers and stuff ?
ally are in official rules , they are as illega/WAAC/TFG as taking a Lemman Russ in an IG army or terminators in DA/GK.

Any army built purely to win with no thought given to theme or aesthetic fits that category.

There's a difference between building a solid list, and taking a deliberately abusive TFG list, and if your only consideration when including allies is "Will this make it easier for me to win?" then you've crossed that line.

Oh boy you must hate tournament players. How DARE we try to actually win a game! .... Allies are not a TFG move they are simply a mechanic inserted by GW top let us play the game and start small armies that eventually turn into full armies. Unless your tyranids in which case buy more gaunts...Generally you should use allies to cover your armies weaknesses or to add punch to your list.

Oh dear God...You really need to take a reality check, because if you really believe that Allies "are simply a mechanic inserted by GW top let us play the game and start small armies that eventually turn into full armies" , you are clearly naive and deluded. The reason they have added Allies is to get people to buy more models and increase profits. It's as simple as that. Like a lot of the new rules in 6th edition, they are designed solely to make money: Flyers, Allies and recently the way they have FAQ'd a lot of special codex rules out of existence (see the Lumbering Behemen scratch) are all rule changes with the sole purpose of shifting the more expensive models and a wider variety of models.

"Generally, you should use allies to cover your armies weaknesses or to add punch to your list." Wow, do you work for GW? Sounds like it. That, or you are incredibly naive.
Why play - say for example - Imperial Guard or Tau if you don't like their weakness in CC? Go play something else, rather than attempting to patch them up with Allies. You are ruining the character of the army, and what's worse, if Allies becomes the norm it's not fair on the rest of us who aren't WAAC or TFG and who just want to play to our armies strengths, not patch it up with pure cheese.

Of course, Allies can give us cool ideas too like Traitor Guard, Tau Human Auxillaries, Daemons and Chaos Tzeentch armies, Inquistion forcs etc etc. But you just know this is going to be impossible to regulate or prove and it's going to spiral into TFG bs where it's all WAAC and no one can be remotely competitive without allies.

I wish people would wake up and see the truth under the 'cinematic narrative experience' (haha, yeah right), but most people won't. Bunch of fething TFG who should've been drowned at birth if you ask me....

I'd like you to answer a question for me then. Am I TFG? I have built a list from the IG codex, but brought in some allies using Coteaz and his henchmen from the Grey Knights codex to help cover up a known weakness in the IG codex. namely I brought in a squad to provide some close combat punch and staying power.

I'll give you more detail about my list though. It's an Adeptus Arbites list. That means it is entirely carapace armored troops and vehicles. I have three units of Veterans with shotguns and 3 grenade launchers. They are led by a Lord Commissar "Marshall". They have two units of SWAT esk troops designed to deploy behind enemy lines and neutralize heavy targets and storm fortified positions. They are two units of Storm Troopers with two meltaguns each. (They are fluff explained as using shotguns firing mini shaped charge shells as their hotshot lasguns, and provide my only AT and virtually all my ap 3 weaponry in my army. Then I am backed up by a Demolisher or two with sponson flamers.

The thing is, I want to bring two units of Shock Teams, who are the Arbites close combat riot suppression troops. I have two choices, from the IG dex or GKs. Bothcome in a chimera with turret flamer and dozer blades. I can take them as veterans, with shotguns, flamers, and a sergeant with power maul, or a henchmen squad with three warriors with flamers, 2 barebones 4 pt warriors as cyber mastiffs and 6-7 crusaders as Arbites with shock mauls and suppression shiels. I take the second because they provide me with great utility, getting a squad of inv 3+ saves and str 5 ap 4 power weapons.

I do get more wins than losses against my regular opponent, but that's more because he really never has a plan, or an idea as he builds his army, and doesn't even think about tactics while on the table. He plays BA and SW, yet doesn't build his armies based on fluff, theme, or even what models he likes, yet he doesn't seem to know how to think about the roles of each unit within an army.

Against most everybody I play, I am fighting an uphill battle. I normally have to use creative tactics and planning because for instance, my storm troopers never quite seem to accomplish their goal. And most of my theme holds me to a underpowered weapons.

The other armies I've fought against recently have been IG with 4 vendettas, Fortress fortification, colossus hidden by the fortress, and a metric gak ton of troopers and autocannons. JSJ/wraith Eldar army, Salamanders list with dual rerollable flamer landspeeders, super flamer land raider, lots of bikes with meltas and flamers. BA with mephiston, fast demolisher cannons and fnp galore.

My army is by far the least cheesy, yet it is the only one with allies taken to cover up one of my armies weaknesses so therefore I must be TFG, and all out to ruin my opponents enjoyment of the game due to my laughably overpowered army.

roadkizzle wrote:



I'd like you to answer a question for me then. Am I TFG? I have built a list from the IG codex, but brought in some allies using Coteaz and his henchmen from the Grey Knights codex to help cover up a known weakness in the IG codex. namely I brought in a squad to provide some close combat punch and staying power.

I'll give you more detail about my list though. It's an Adeptus Arbites list. That means it is entirely carapace armored troops and vehicles. I have three units of Veterans with shotguns and 3 grenade launchers. They are led by a Lord Commissar "Marshall". They have two units of SWAT esk troops designed to deploy behind enemy lines and neutralize heavy targets and storm fortified positions. They are two units of Storm Troopers with two meltaguns each. (They are fluff explained as using shotguns firing mini shaped charge shells as their hotshot lasguns, and provide my only AT and virtually all my ap 3 weaponry in my army. Then I am backed up by a Demolisher or two with sponson flamers.

The thing is, I want to bring two units of Shock Teams, who are the Arbites close combat riot suppression troops. I have two choices, from the IG dex or GKs. Bothcome in a chimera with turret flamer and dozer blades. I can take them as veterans, with shotguns, flamers, and a sergeant with power maul, or a henchmen squad with three warriors with flamers, 2 barebones 4 pt warriors as cyber mastiffs and 6-7 crusaders as Arbites with shock mauls and suppression shiels. I take the second because they provide me with great utility, getting a squad of inv 3+ saves and str 5 ap 4 power weapons.

I do get more wins than losses against my regular opponent, but that's more because he really never has a plan, or an idea as he builds his army, and doesn't even think about tactics while on the table. He plays BA and SW, yet doesn't build his armies based on fluff, theme, or even what models he likes, yet he doesn't seem to know how to think about the roles of each unit within an army.

Against most everybody I play, I am fighting an uphill battle. I normally have to use creative tactics and planning because for instance, my storm troopers never quite seem to accomplish their goal. And most of my theme holds me to a underpowered weapons.

The other armies I've fought against recently have been IG with 4 vendettas, Fortress fortification, colossus hidden by the fortress, and a metric gak ton of troopers and autocannons. JSJ/wraith Eldar army, Salamanders list with dual rerollable flamer landspeeders, super flamer land raider, lots of bikes with meltas and flamers. BA with mephiston, fast demolisher cannons and fnp galore.

My army is by far the least cheesy, yet it is the only one with allies taken to cover up one of my armies weaknesses so therefore I must be TFG, and all out to ruin my opponents enjoyment of the game due to my laughably overpowered army.

Yup sounds pretty bad... Your list actually sounds pretty cool IMO, but then again I dont see using allies to do what allies are intended to do as being TFG :/.

I play orks and wanted an allied detachment to help me out with my fear of tanks. Taking IG, Tau or Necrons were the obvious choices but I went with CSM because I felt they were the only ones who made sense. Does that make me TFG for taking an ally based on their gameplay use or do I avoid the title due to bowing to fluff? DID I JUST BLOW YOUR MINDS?

AndrewChristlieb wrote:

Yup sounds pretty bad... Your list actually sounds pretty cool IMO, but then again I dont see using allies to do what allies are intended to do as being TFG :/.

Amusingly, on the topic of the thread I am using a very nicely priced (probably underpriced HQ to change the FOC restrictions in order to completely avoid the "troop tax" because the only units I want from the list happen to be their troop choices.

roadkizzle wrote:

AndrewChristlieb wrote:

Yup sounds pretty bad... Your list actually sounds pretty cool IMO, but then again I dont see using allies to do what allies are intended to do as being TFG :/.

Amusingly, on the topic of the thread I am using a very nicely priced (probably underpriced HQ to change the FOC restrictions in order to completely avoid the "troop tax" because the only units I want from the list happen to be their troop choices.

I might be the only one wondering but how exactly are you doing this?

I take an IG army. Then decide to ally using the Grey Knights codex. As my mandatory HQ choice I use Inquisitor Coteaz because he allows me to use henchman squads as troops. Then I take 1-2 henchman squads now from Troops in chimeras as my shock teams.

Okay that breaks absolutely nothing at all. I use Belial he makes terminators troops.

Ok, thanks for all the replies guys, the thread has been a really interesting read so far.

I want to pull this back on topic a little more. The point of this thread was discussing ways of -HOW- you use allies not whether you -SHOULD- use them. Where I play, competitive is the name of the game. The guys in the group regularly place well in Throne of Skulls tournaments, and if you turn up with a fluff or casual list they will run over you. It'll be a poor game for them because their cheese lists will win easy, and it'll be a poor game for me because I’ll get trashed. It’s up to you to decide whether this is how you want to play warhammer or not, but some of us do want to, and we're happy playing this way, so leave it at that. Now, please keep those discussions regarding allies for another thread.

The other replies seem split. Some people are suggesting that a "force multiplier" type character, like Belial, is efficient if you only want the assault terminators in your list; whereas others are advocating taking the troops, as they are not going to be useless, even if sitting on an objective...

I sit with the Special character faction, I think. If I want to add terminators to a list, I think Belial and Deathwing are a better option, as these termies count as scoring. There’s no real reason to pay extra points for extra (troops) units you don't need/ want, when you can invest the extra points better in your primary detachment.

To the other side I ask: How do you then go "paying" the troop tax. Do you take a minimum sized troop unit and camp it on an objective, or do you invest more heavily into it; special and heavy weapons, upgrades, and make it a shootier/ more combat effective unit? Does it hurt to take points out your primary detachment to pump the effectiveness of the allied troops?

Try and bear in mind, that when we talk of allied detachments and "troop taxes" that we are taking allies for a specific heavy/ fast/ elite choice, and the HQ and troops are necessary to unlock this feature.

Many thanks, Hetelic