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.

In response to the OP's title.

Out of curiosity, do you feel like the allies matrix has allowed GW to actually be more lazy in regards to codex balances?

The reason I ask, is that I enjoy mono-dex armies myself, but if I don't have a good counter to something, the usual response seems to be, just ally whatever you need. The only problem I have there, is that many times the ally answer is something from some other army that I never had any desire to play or collect in the first place.

On the other hand however, the fact that players "can" ally in pretty much whatever they want is what seems to lead to such an incredibly large mix/mash of innovative units utilizing each others rules for special tactics.

But anyways, the point of my question is really "Are some codexes better written or balanced/viable based on not having as many allies answers to specific things? Do you feel like the allies matrix provides GW with an easy cop-out so they don't necessarily 'need' to work as hard at balancing a lot of codexes? Been wondering about this awhile now, and I'm curious what you and others on Dakka think.