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 the codexes I use the troup tax is relatively small, 75 points for 5 grey hunters is at least as good as I am getting elsewhere. Ork boys are a decent enough unit (and there are always grots if you feel like saving a few points). I occasionally take a captain on a bike to convert bikes to troups when allying in bikes to a wolves army.

Well seeing as you want to have coteaz, and crusader/death cults they should probably be in chimeras and surge out early to provide midfield control for you more static guard army. they are there looking to destroy CC threats I.E. use heavy support to open up the transports and use your previously deployed henchmen to mop up units that are a problem.then I would have a dreadknight with only an incinerator they hit hard and can tie up enemy units in CC.

 Trench-Raider wrote:


-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.

So very true! Another person who knows what he is talking about.

And yeah, I knew a guy who played that horrible Eldar list. I still hate Eldar to this day because of that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

roadkizzle wrote:

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...

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.

This is FFG - Fairly Fan Girl. This is because a.) You shouldn't be playing Guard if you don't like the lack of close combat and b.) Probably more significantly, Imperial Guard get executed after fighting alongside GK, so the fluff doesn't work...That said, you've gone to an effort to re-work your allies fluff to make a unique inquisitor-type army, which sounds pretty cool. So you are saved from TFG for that. You clearly aren't abusing Allies to WAAC, so i'd happily play you.

Invisible Jesus wrote:
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.

you use that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...

Who includes units that will help them lose a game?

Allies or not, when building a list, we ask ourselves "Will this make it easier for me to win?"

No one brings a Librarian, 5 scouts with sniper rifles, and 30 Death Company with dual TH's and Jump Packs to a game. There are two reasons:

1) This army will die really easily

2) This army costs about 3k points and has about a 1% chance of winning.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
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?

The underlined is 100% true.

Invisible Jesus wrote:
[
This is FFG - Fairly Fan Girl. This is because a.) You shouldn't be playing Guard if you don't like the lack of close combat and b.) Probably more significantly, Imperial Guard get executed after fighting alongside GK, so the fluff doesn't work...That said, you've gone to an effort to re-work your allies fluff to make a unique inquisitor-type army, which sounds pretty cool. So you are saved from TFG for that. You clearly aren't abusing Allies to WAAC, so i'd happily play you.

Yeah, I don't think you actually know what you're talking about. You can't just change your mind like that. If you concede that my list is fine to play with then you must concede that taking allies to help you win isn't what makes you TFG or WAAC. It isthe players attitude towards list building entirely. It has nothing to do with whether or not he chooses to include any allies. Some of the worst TFG lists are entirely mono codex. Just like there are innumerable lists with allies that are nothing but fun and games. TFG will make an annoying list regardless of if he is allowed to take allies.

But, my army is not an IG one. It just happens to be there are no Arbites rules although they are a legitimate army in the backstory of the game. I could very well build my entire army using the IG codex, and before 6th I did. But I choose to use allies because it makes my list a little better. Does it matter if within the background a guardsmen squad would crumble in combat. I don't think n Arbites Shock Team would, so I am not going against my armies characterizing weakness by taking agood close combat squad.

roadkizzle wrote:

Invisible Jesus wrote:
[
This is FFG - Fairly Fan Girl. This is because a.) You shouldn't be playing Guard if you don't like the lack of close combat and b.) Probably more significantly, Imperial Guard get executed after fighting alongside GK, so the fluff doesn't work...That said, you've gone to an effort to re-work your allies fluff to make a unique inquisitor-type army, which sounds pretty cool. So you are saved from TFG for that. You clearly aren't abusing Allies to WAAC, so i'd happily play you.

Yeah, I don't think you actually know what you're talking about. You can't just change your mind like that. If you concede that my list is fine to play with then you must concede that taking allies to help you win isn't what makes you TFG or WAAC. It isthe players attitude towards list building entirely. It has nothing to do with whether or not he chooses to include any allies. Some of the worst TFG lists are entirely mono codex. Just like there are innumerable lists with allies that are nothing but fun and games. TFG will make an annoying list regardless of if he is allowed to take allies.

But, my army is not an IG one. It just happens to be there are no Arbites rules although they are a legitimate army in the backstory of the game. I could very well build my entire army using the IG codex, and before 6th I did. But I choose to use allies because it makes my list a little better. Does it matter if within the background a guardsmen squad would crumble in combat. I don't think n Arbites Shock Team would, so I am not going against my armies characterizing weakness by taking agood close combat squad.

QFT... I played a horde guard army at NOVA once I eliminated the heavy support his troops started going down like flies. If he had crusader and deathcults he probably would have been able to halt my relentless assault through his army. The winner of the tournament played space wolves with imperial guard allies is that TFG or is that playing the game.

 captain collius wrote:

QFT... I played a horde guard army at NOVA once I eliminated the heavy support his troops started going down like flies. If he had crusader and deathcults he probably would have been able to halt my relentless assault through his army. The winner of the tournament played space wolves with imperial guard allies is that TFG or is that playing the game.

I think that player would be considered TFG on one condition. He is bringing that list in an environment thatstrives to play light fluffy games. Because the situation was a tournament though he would have beenwrong not to.

If i was going to take a unique to enable use of an unusual troop type i wouldnt waste that on taking the minimum. In fact i would probably try to max out on whatever it is that made me want said troop to begin with.

To be fair, it's easy to see both sides of the argument:

When someone abuses a certain rule or build with the sole intention to win, it usually makes for a tense and unenjoyable game, because the type of people that do that are usually WAAC people by nature and thus don't really care about anything else (with few exceptions).
People have cited examples of such behaviour throughout all editions of 40k: Fish of Fury (4th), the 2nd edition Eldar Psyker List, Draigowing and Chimera-spam in 5th and so forth.
Now regardless of the evidence people are claiming Allies do the same in 6th.

Basically, it boils down to what type of player you are: If you are a tournament player you don't really have any right to moan about Allies, as this type of high-end competitive play has always been WAAC. No one really enters tournaments for fluff or to have a laid back friendly game where you just hang out with a few beers. No. It's WAAC by it's very nature.

However, if you are the type who just plays those friendly games, (with or without a few beers!), or just plays games at your LFGC, of course it's really annoying if you come up against someone who is being WAAC and using cheese tactics or builds with the sole purpose of winning.

However, you can always choose to not play them if this is the case.

So on the one hand, does it really matter? You can refuse to play them if there is list is WAAC for whatever reason, be it Allies choices, Flyer Spam etc.
On the other hand, if you are playing a tournament you have already decided you are playing a WAAC game, so have no right to complain and can't refuse.

Either way, it doesn't seem to matter all that much. Is it cheesey or TFG? Maybe. Does that matter? Not really.

Invisible Jesus wrote:

This is FFG - Fairly Fan Girl. This is because a.) You shouldn't be playing Guard if you don't like the lack of close combat and b.) Probably more significantly, Imperial Guard get executed after fighting alongside GK, so the fluff doesn't work

Way to prove that you didn't read any of Roadkizzle's post. About 60% of it was describing his Arbites fluff, which - surprisingly enough - works perfectly well.
As a guard player, of course I don't like the lack of combat prowess. Am I going to take allies to provide some sort of edfence? Of course I am. If you want your opponent not too because you're too stubborn to take allies in order to protect yourself, then expect your opponents to walk all over you.

I really can't see any problem with allies. We all have the same options. If you want a light "fluffy" game, ask for one. Otherwise, bring your best or expect to lose.

Back OT, I bring Deathwing to cover my aforementioned Guard's lack of CC power, and to make my overall toughness a bit higher.Terminators also make great anti assault bubblewraps. Taking Belial makes them troops, so they can score too.

What a sad game where you have to avoid making efficient combinations if you want to be liked.

What I think:

- if someone brings a list that destroys yours and you had no chance from the start, that says little about a person but a lot about rules writers

- building a force as deadly as possible and viciously steamrolling people fits exactly the fluff of 40k

- if allies ruin armies character, that's GW who ruined it then and I see no reason to force players using name calling or social pressure to not use them and fix GWs game

- 40k is not an rpg, that's a ridiculous idea, RT is long gone and it wasn't exactly an rpg system either

- point costs, foc, objectives, and 100+ pages of rules, all this either serves for creating a competitive environment or just doesn't make sense and is a waste of time and paper

- there are friendly competitive games and playing for fun and to win are not exclusive, in fact this is a natural and healthy way to play a game containing objectives to win

- if someone plays for narrative/ fluff/ cinematic, you can write a book based on you being tabled, don't see the reason to be upset throw tfg at people etc

- I run 3 Carnifexes and field only the units I like look or mood wise, that's for anyone who would like to accuse me of being a tfg

- I recognise that my list being far worse than so called WAAC list is entirely GWs lame rules fault and have nothing against people bringing the latter, uphill battle is good and loosing is not a problem