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.

Remembering that I’m still new to 40k, and that some parts of this post may be incorrect, I’ve been thinking a lot about the inclusion of allies in 40k armies.
I’ve listened to a few podcasts and 1 in particular: The 11th Company, have talked at length about including an allied detachment in your primary army. The focus of much of the debate regarding allies lies in –WHAT- allies to take, how many points to spend on allies, and other issues of efficiency and list building.

From what I can understand, the main reasons to include allies in your 40k army is to either safeguard your armies weakness (ie, wolf priests for psychic defence); or to further enhance your armies strength (ie, Deathwing Terminators). When looking at allies in these terms, very few (if any) lists are taking allies for troops. In fact, it appears that the allied troop choice is just a minimum unit that allows you to unlock the more specialised Elite/ Heavy/ Fast options. In this respect, the troop choice you must take could be considered a “tax” for taking other units.
So I then considered how to manipulate this “tax”, going on the principle that a competitive list will maximise the important elements, and minimise the chaff.

So (finally getting to the point), is this the area where “force multiplier” characters really shine? Example, some people suggest that Draigo is very over-costed a 2XX points; however, if you really want to add Paladins to your space marines, does this become the most efficient way to do it? Likewise, if you really want to add SM terminators to your Guard, is Belial more cost effective than a DA captain and a 5man tac squad?
I think this is especially prevalent with non-special characters that allow FoC manipulation, like a Biker-Boss or SM bike Captain. A biker boss allows you to add a Nob biker squad to an allied army, without the “tax2 of paying for additional troops, and the boss adds to the unit to enhance its effectiveness.

Am I barking up the wrong tree?? Is Draigo always overpriced, and nothing can offset that? Or will we begin to see more of these “force multiplier” characters as the Meta-game changes, and more specific unit counters are required?

Many thanks, Hetelic

Draigo is a force multiplier in a GK force, thanks to grand strategy and LOS. But grand strategy can be a waste if you field too less units that can benefit from them, like scouting/outflanking Dreadknights or scoring Psyfleman Dreads.

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.

 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.

Thats a bit harsh. Not all warhammer is casual or fluff related play. Some people want to play competative warhammer, and they find their enjoyment in winning. Its a players right to decide how to play the game for their own enjoyment. But thats besides the point.. This was directed specifically at people who are playing in such competative circles.

OTT response there Kaldor. Calling anyone using allies to play the game TFG is pretty out of order.

While I agree there should be a narrative theme or link to the alliance, it doesn't mean someone using an allied unit simply because it's good is TFG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hetelic wrote:

 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.

Thats a bit harsh. Not all warhammer is casual or fluff related play. Some people want to play competative warhammer, and they find their enjoyment in winning. Its a players right to decide how to play the game for their own enjoyment. But thats besides the point.. This was directed specifically at people who are playing in such competative circles.

Like this. It wouldn't surprise me to see FoC altering characters come into play more. Look at it this way: I can take AD company master, Tac squad and 1 unit of DW Terminators as allies in Guard.
Or
I can take Belial, and now those Terminators are the troops I need to include Terminators.
List one is about 390 points to get the Termies in.
List 2 is 345, and I have a more durable character in there too, as well as not having the Tac I don't want. On top of that, I can also take more Terminators as troops if I want.

 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.

People used to say the same thing about Special Characters, and they were banned from general usage at many events. Allies are just the new thing.

 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.

So wait, I'm TFG for wanting to take an ally that will make my army better? One of the purposes of the allies system is to plug the holes in your army (close combat units in a Guard army, for example) or make what your army's already good at even better. Ideally these units will be fitting of your theme, but not everyone's allying in a Psyfleman Dreadnought with Coteaz and his not-quite meltavets.

I guess I'm TFG because 3 LRBTs are better than my single Looted equivalent.

 DeffDred wrote:
I guess I'm TFG because 3 LRBTs are better than my single Looted equivalent.

Damn straight you are! Quit exploiting the allies matrix and make sure all your allied Troops sections are full of Penal Legion!

There is no such thing as troop tax.

Those troops can cap an objective, they really are worth having around.

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is no such thing as troop tax.

Those troops can cap an objective, they really are worth having around.

There's such a thing as a troop tax when said troops are worse than those in your own Codex or cost quite a bit while not doing anything other than sitting at an objective.

 Brother SRM wrote:

 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.

So wait, I'm TFG for wanting to take an ally that will make my army better? One of the purposes of the allies system is to plug the holes in your army (close combat units in a Guard army, for example) or make what your army's already good at even better. Ideally these units will be fitting of your theme, but not everyone's allying in a Psyfleman Dreadnought with Coteaz and his not-quite meltavets.

Well, yeah. If you're just doing it so you can win more easily that's pretty much the definition of TFG. It's no different to building a Purifier spam list or Necron airforce.

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.

There's such a thing as a troop tax when said troops are worse than those in your own Codex or cost quite a bit while not doing anything other than sitting at an objective.

100% true . I start every IG army with a SW Rune Priest and some plasma GH , they are a huge boost to my aegis line based army . A cheap support HQ , a good and cheap meq stats unit that is both ok for counters and shoting , I would have to be mad to not take them .

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.

I use them to specifically fix problems with my force, SM are very dead when it comes to long range fire power, so tau are my go too.
But because the white scars consider the Tau a force or worthy warriors.
But when im playing against other imperium armies the joke is i'm the traitor.

If you're playing in a competitive tournament or highly competitive game/group that's agreed to bring 'no holds bar' type lists, than there's nothing wrong with pulling out the super efficient lists. So allying in say Draigo + Pallies to a SW Longfang spam army shouldn't cause anyone any butt-hurt. (you signed up for it after all!)
But, going into your local 'friendly gaming night' with a super mathhammered/'uber efficient list that's using allies simply to create a roflstomping monster list is being a complete TFG!

But then, I've found that 40k has become more like a profesional sporting event to most players than an actual fun game over the past few years...

40k is nothing like a sporting event or other competitive game. The very fact that you can be considered a bad person for taking a rules-legal list indicates how incredibly noncompetitive the community is. It's why GW continues to produce the obtuse ruleset and slow updates, because of that belief that only competitive players care about tight, consistent rules.

GW defined an ally matrix. They're all legal and their efficacy varies, which defines the value of adding them to other codexes. 40k's lore is diverse enough that one can justify ANY legal combination and even army. The people claiming it violates aesthetic are simultaneously bad at the game and at imagination.

The only reason any list should be a problem is if you have agreed to keep it competitive or fluffy. If you really want an all out kill machine for a list just make sure your opponet understands that so they dont bring their less than competitive but fluffy list. After all you dont want to be know as "that guy" everytine you walk in the store and never have anyone that want to play you.

 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.

I don't see why getting a better list is a TFG thing, what about people who just like to play and don't like the fluff? So they are TFG because they don't have any preferences of the fluff they like?

And if you see that your list is missing something and you need something to aid that part and an ally branch does exactly that then why wouldn't you?

If it is legal it is completely fine.

It's not the player's fault for bringing something that's allowed.

What if someone liked the flying necron list? and they found some fluff to support it? then what?

I dont field allies, mostly because my second army are Orks, and if i fielded them alongside my Blood Ravens that would be fluff-breaking.
And i dont like fielding Unique characters anyway so.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is no such thing as troop tax.

Those troops can cap an objective, they really are worth having around.

There's such a thing as a troop tax when said troops are worse than those in your own Codex or cost quite a bit while not doing anything other than sitting at an objective.

and an example of such a unit would be?

 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.

I think the way that you are making your point is a bit harsh, but I agree with the basic sentiment.

It's true. If you are thinking about "list building" and "force multipliers" and stuff like that with regards to 40k, you are just totally missing the point. 40k is a tabletop RPG, not an exercise in competition. You should be thinking of allies in terms of how they can add to the game or allow you to use your fledgling armies. You should NOT be thinking of how to abuse the allies system to plug holes in your army and break faces.

The game isn't designed from a competitive standpoint, and neither should it be played from a (strictly) competitive standpoint. Square peg, round hole, and all that.

But, that's all I am going to say on the matter because I realize that I am mainly preaching to the choir here and that the point is nearly entirely lost on those who don't get it.

 Makutsu wrote:
What if someone liked the flying necron list? and they found some fluff to support it? then what?

Then that person is going to have a hard time finding opponents.

Because being that guy is, well, being TFG.

If you've got a group of players that really enjoys the challenge of building the most OP lists they can, then knock yourself out. That's fine. But taking that same list to 'regular' games is a douche move. People aren't expecting it, and don't want to fight it, and using allies to push your list in that direction is as much a douche move as building your list that way with your codex.

Every unit has their strengths, why would you take a unit that would be worse than your own anyway? I cant see anyone taking a BA JP army for example and saying "you know what this needs? some BT Initiates as a troop choice!" It just wouldnt happen, well it might but then why once again outside of fluff maybe?

If you see Troops as a Tax, you're doing it wrong. Troops in many armies are good units, and more scoring units is always a good thing and can give you an advantage over a non-allies using opponent. It also means you may need fewer troops in your Core force so you can min/max that better.

Back on Topic:
For an example taking Guardians or Rangers in a Dark Eldar Army does somewhat bring down the mobility, and they aren't cheap too.
If I could I would just bring a Farseer to the game.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
What if someone liked the flying necron list? and they found some fluff to support it? then what?

Then that person is going to have a hard time finding opponents.

Because being that guy is, well, being TFG.

If you've got a group of players that really enjoys the challenge of building the most OP lists they can, then knock yourself out. That's fine. But taking that same list to 'regular' games is a douche move. People aren't expecting it, and don't want to fight it, and using allies to push your list in that direction is as much a douche move as building your list that way with your codex.

So if someone enjoys the fluff and builds a fluff based army that is just strong due to GWs somewhat broken rules then he is TFG? even if he is nice and friendly?

You are misunderstanding TFG and things that you don't like.

It's like wanting to play a game where you want to be handicapped and asking your opponent to do so as well.

That's nice and all if you were friends and stuff but I don't see why people have to follow you around to be handicapped.

 Makutsu wrote:
So if someone enjoys the fluff and builds a fluff based army that is just strong due to GWs somewhat broken rules then he is TFG? even if he is nice and friendly?

Yes. Because he's deliberately doing things that people don't like. Building an over-powered roflstomping list for use in 'regular' games for example.

That's the definition of TFG.

Kaldor sounds mad because now everyone can partake of some of his GK cheesiness.

Fight fire with fire.

Or paladins with paladins. And better heavy support if you happen to be guard.

 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.

Ok I take issue with this, Belial and his TH/SS troops are the best ally in the game, I have run them with Space Wolves, Tau, and up next is Imperial Guard.

IMO they are the best allies in the game, you throw a cyclone in each squad and even only being able to take 5 is a good thing, as they can go in different directions to harass the enemy. I played a lot of early games with 2-3 flyers until I realized how much of an advantage they gave me, and now I haven't run them in the last two games I have played. Just because a game is casual doesn't mean you should bring out the roughriders, wolf scouts, and vespids. I don't care if this makes me TFG, but I consider myself fairly competitive, I don't go into a game with a gak list just because the game is casual. I ran a 3 Long Fang squads on a pad, WL an 3 TWs with Belial and his 10 TH/SS buddies and the game was fun, it was the relic an thanks to a warlord trait I was able to get the relic first an hold on to it, he killed a ton of my crap, an I killed a bunch of his crap, we both had fun. I bought the DA as an allied detachment specifically for that reason, I don't need more tac squads and marine bikers.

I take allies so my Unforgiven Chapter's Second Company can operate some nifty-looking aircraft along with their bikes and speeders. The tactical marines serve the purpose of looking cool while garrisoning a building and providing fire support for my First Company blokes.