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.

Am I the only one that doesnt like the whole allies choice in 6th ed? I know some of you will use it to your advantage having something good from another codex(Just feels like a cheap and easy way out). But I rather just stick to one army and one army only. Find a way to counter your opponents useing one codex seems like the way to go....Anyway just my opinion. Do any others feel the same?

Purists don't like it, army collectors like it

Fluff-bunnies don't like it unless it has got supporting fluff, Powergamers like it if it makes their army more effective.

Everyone has their reasons for liking/disliking it.

It's hardly a cheap/easy way out, it's a way to add variation to your codex. For instance: Guard has one guy with a PA save. No good psykers. Add in Space Wolves; whole different story. Is it cheesier than pure guard? Not always; plenty of cheap tricks to be pulled from both choices. It's just more variation to the game.

I agree that most allies are just powergamers abusing an open-ended system. I mean, it's no different than people playing with forgeworld stuff in days of yore (well... and still nowadays).

There are a few legitimate uses, though, like if you have several fully painted armies and want to mix things up, or if you just started a new army, and wanted to use some of your new units in a game, even though you didn't have a big army yet.

I've yet to see anybody say that their primary army is a "X and Y" army, though.

In any case, you don't need to be a TFG to use allies, but if you're a TFG, you're probably using allies. It's what you'd expect from something abusable, allies included.

I've always liked big team games where there were mixed armies on each side. It always made it feel like a battle where the stakes were higher because each side was fighting a bigger threat.

I'm not sure about the allies thing because even though there are multiple aggressors and defenders, because you have to split up your points. Although the allies rules make their behavior in game a bit more believable fluff-wise.

Maybe that's just my bias though. I always like really big games. Small point games just don't feel important enough to fight.

I love allies, It lets me use Broadsides without playing all Tau

 TheCaptain wrote:

Fluff-bunnies

Fluff bunnies! Yay! *cuddles*

I like allies. It's a good way to offset some of the inherent imbalances in certain codices by allowing you to plug gaps to better round your force (unless you're playing tyranids of course). It's not a cheap way out because there's some careful planning when choosing who to take, what synergy is best and what is just redundancy.
Also, you know, incentive to buy more models.

Like the concepts of "start a small secondary army, still get to play it" and "properly portray those fluff combinations", but the execution of it was just awful. It's awful for game balance purposes with Imperial armies getting everything and Tyranids getting nothing, and it's awful for fluff purposes with utterly stupid things like Black Templars allied with xenos witches and Farsight Tau allied with orks. So no, you're not alone.

I like them for fluff and army collecting purposes. I can finally create stuff like the Damocles Crusade (Black Templars + Crimson Fists sharing heraldry), or Tau hiring Ork mercenary auxiliaries, and be able to field it.

What I dont like is some of the allies combinations/relationships dont particularly make sense. Like Space Marines - Tau as Battle Brothers. Allies of Convenience, sure, but not Battle Brothers.

"What are allies?" Said every Tyranid player ever :-)

For the most part I'm for it because I like the idea of being able to get a taste of a different army without having to commit as much money as I would have before.

That being said, I play Tyranids so I don't get any allies anyways. I don't really like playing the only race that gets zero allies but I understand it for fluff reasons. I don't think anyone has every said "Hey Commander, we should help out those Tyranids." Normally it's "Oh Holy Emperor, Tyranids! Kill it with fire! Ask those Necrons we've been fighting if they want in on this too."

 Ronin wrote:
I like them for fluff and army collecting purposes. I can finally create stuff like the Damocles Crusade (Black Templars + Crimson Fists sharing heraldry), or Tau hiring Ork mercenary auxiliaries, and be able to field it.

What I dont like is some of the allies combinations/relationships dont particularly make sense. Like Space Marines - Tau as Battle Brothers. Allies of Convenience, sure, but not Battle Brothers.

In fairness, I believe there will be some new fluff revealed (eventually) in the upcoming Tau codex, whenever that may come out, that justifies a battle brother relationship between Tau and Marines.

People complain about Tyranids not getting allies, but are there any realistic justifications for Tyranid allies in the first place? I can't come up with any, myself. To me, the allies matrix makes sense, the different pairings are pretty much spot-on.

Personally, I use allies to make up for a weakness in my codex. Space Wolves has few worthwhile strong, elite or fast attack units (Wolf Guard are expensive and Lone Wolves are above average at best, leaving only the powerhouse Thunderwolf Cavalry as an option). Blood Angels are full of them (all kinds of Dreadnoughts, Death Company, Sanguinary Guard...). That's why I run my Wolves and Angels together, because the Blood Angels covers a weak area in the Wolves codex. I like to see two codices mesh together to cover each other, rather than just using an ally to make a power list.

I still don't like some of the things allies brought with them. If one of my armies can't deal with something (often flyers) people tell me to buy another army as allies to deal with it. What? Why should I need two armies in order to have a fair game against one army? This is an expensive hobby enough as it is, getting an extra codex and units as a solution seems a bit silly.

But I guess WH40K has long been a game of money first like those collectible card games. If you can't spend the money for the new expansion you won't have the shiny new cards and you'll have a harder time winning.

Honestly, im split on allies. I dont like the possible abuses i can see powergamers attempting, but it does seem to add another fluffy, cinematic element to this new and very cinematic version of the game.

I'm not really a huge fan. I don't like how it's become the new way to fix a codex without having to actually release a new dex. I don't want to have to include marines in order to be able to deal with anything the enemy can hand me, not only because it's unfluffy (most of the time) but because if I wanted to be playing marines, I would be playing marines.

That being said, I don't begrudge people who want to include allies in their army, other than if they're just doing it to power game, and even then, in a tournament I wouldn't hold it against them.

I'm sort of indifferent to allies. It's odd to see things like Necrons with Orks, but thats just the way it is now...

At first I thought it would be awesome to get some guard or necron allies for my grey knights, but in all honesty, there is so much of a tax with allies that sticking to pure gk is much better.

 Locclo wrote:
People complain about Tyranids not getting allies, but are there any realistic justifications for Tyranid allies in the first place? I can't come up with any, myself.

Game balance. If you're going to trash the fluff and allow Black Templars to ally with xenos witches you might as well admit that allies aren't about fluff and give Tyranid players the same level of options that everyone else gets.

To me, the allies matrix makes sense, the different pairings are pretty much spot-on.

Did you even read the allies matrix?

 Locclo wrote:


Personally, I use allies to make up for a weakness in my codex. Space Wolves has few worthwhile strong, elite or fast attack units (Wolf Guard are expensive and Lone Wolves are above average at best, leaving only the powerhouse Thunderwolf Cavalry as an option). Blood Angels are full of them (all kinds of Dreadnoughts, Death Company, Sanguinary Guard...). That's why I run my Wolves and Angels together, because the Blood Angels covers a weak area in the Wolves codex. I like to see two codices mesh together to cover each other, rather than just using an ally to make a power list.

Other wise known as Codex:Twilight

In all seriousness though, if it is played as intended for making fluffy alliances it's all good, but yes it is far to open for abuse in the competitive setting.

I didn't use allies in 2nd edition or 3rd edition (in that the "forces of the imperium" in the 3rd ed rulebook were allies) and I still don't believe in using them.

You pick your army because of its strengths (and weaknesses). Taking allies is like playing Doom in god mode. Takes the challenge out of things by allowing you to plug those deficiencies with capable units from other armies.

Like a lot of things that GW does, I really like the concept of allies, but I don't like the execution of this concept. The allies matrix seems amazingly arbitrary and in some cases nonsensical (Dark Eldar allying with Chaos Daemons? WTF? The highly xenophobic Templars being better friends, so to speak, with the Eldar than with the Sisters? Huh?), which leads those of us who like a little consistency with their fluff to question just what on earth they were thinking when the various combinations were made.

As far as allies themselves, from a rules standpoint, I have no real issue. There are many examples of forces coming together for various reasons (Guard & Marines, Inquisition & other Imperial Armies, Eldar & Imperials, Marine & Marine, Chaos & Orks, Orks & Renegade Guard, Chaos & Renegade Guard, and so on), so allies make sense to me.

I assume the only allies 'nids might have is Necrons.
Is there any part of a Necron that a Tyranid could eat or chuck in the bio-pool?

But, I do like Allies, mostly.
If 40k 6th is more Cinematic than before, all those scenes in the books need to be able to happen. Fist-bumps and daring rescues, and all that.
It happens often enough in campaign missions in DoW, so why not on the tabletop?
Some alliances do make you wonder what they were thinking, though....

Someone made a really interesting suggestion in Proposed rules about making Space Marines and Chaos Space marines Battle Brothers, so you could make, post heresy renegades, that have post heresy equipment. I thought it was an interesting concept http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/487373.page

It puts proper daemons back into CSM armies. That's enough for me to hail it as a good thing.

I see it as a truly neutral change.

I mean, you don't have to use allies (I don't, but then again I don't play 40K anymore so that's a moot point) but looking at the tables in the FLGS very few people actually seem to use allies in friendly games anyway.

Admittedly, certain types of gamers are using it to make horrible ultra-competitive lists, but let's face it if they didn't have allies they would find some other way to do it.

You can get some good fluffy lists going with allies though, like a CSM army with some daemons in it (always has been and always will be fluffy), an IG army with support from SM (again very fluffy), also, you want a old-school inquisitorial army (when Inq had access to imperial guard shizzle without all that Coteaz henchman spam mess) then and IG army with a grey knights ally detachment is right up your alley.

I have several armies, some larger than others. For a pick up game i will use an army from one codex only. however, for other types of games like scenarios and so forth, it may be in character to have allies (rescuing an impeial colonel with space marines) and i'm also a magpie, so when i play with my regular oponents, i might include the latest 'shiny, must have' unit in my army.

I don't really consider allies to be a bad thing, although they can quite easily be abused, and i don't often see them in armies i face. but it does allow you to vary your standard army with new wierd and wonderful units on a game by game basis if you like, and for the power gamers, allow you to find a truly killer combo to sweep away your enemies.

For collectors alies are also a good way to start using new units from the new army book straight away by using them alongside your regular army, and then as your collection grows you can reverse the FOC and take your regular army as allies. this lets you play games without having to spend a whole load of money up front just to have a playable army. I can see that this is probably the justification for it as far as GW goes, you might not be able to afford a whole new army, but you can certainly afford allies and you may buy stuff you wouldn't have otherwise.

But, as a magpie, and a lover of good miniatures, i wouldn't let the absence of an allies matrix stop me from taking cool looking units i wanted to try, but it does mean i don't have to clear it with my opponent first

 Omfgorzzz wrote:
Am I the only one that doesnt like the whole allies choice in 6th ed? I know some of you will use it to your advantage having something good from another codex(Just feels like a cheap and easy way out). But I rather just stick to one army and one army only. Find a way to counter your opponents useing one codex seems like the way to go....Anyway just my opinion. Do any others feel the same?

I am with you brother, alliance system is by all fluff standards slowed... I have a hunch that Ward wrote this using TT characteristics and not looking at the game fluff itself.

Space Marines battle brothers with Tau but dislike Sisters of Battle ( xeno heresy )?
Black Templars hate Sisters of Battle ( not taking into account that there was never an incident between those two as far as I know and that Black Templars are basically Ecclisiarchy Marines who are close to worship Emperor as a God and they both hate psykers to that ) but will work with the Eldar? Who are xenos and psykers to that?
Dark Angels disliking Space Wolves? i am sorry but didn't these two chapters used to be best bros to the end because of that small Lion and Russ fight back at the time of Great Crusade that made them best buddies after that? They are like organizing games every time members of those chapters met to see who is the better champion at cc fight... of course nobody die in the end but what's important is that they keep the spirit of friendship between two legions by honoring Lion's and Russ's battle.
Chaos Daemons working together with Chaos Marines I get... but Tau??? Dark Eldar??? Imperial Guard???!!!
Chaos Space Marines work better with Tau than their daemonic allies... and they can work with Necrons.... I am sorry what happened to all that "we hate Warp"?
Dark Eldar and Eldar battle brothers? That's like Imperium of Man and Traitor Legions battle brothers.
Necrons can work with Grey Knights? And they are better allies with Chaos Space Marines than Chaos Daemons ( no matter that these two literally fought at Terra side by side... )
Grey Knights work with Necons better than with Blood Angels ( who are their battle brothers to that and one of the original Legions chapter )???


The level of fail in allies matrix is over 9000, it's maybe good for games but it has no logic at all when it comes to 40k lore...

I didn't mind it back in 2nd. It was a lot more fluffy. Space marines and the imperial guard fighting together made sense. Now space marines and orks? Don't like it. I know you can almost justify it by saying that maybe they were fighting each other before a tyranid hive fleet showed up or whatever, but I just don't think it looks right. Some work (ig and chaos, ie traitor guard) but I just think it's a little too free at the moment. It is open to abuse by power gamers, but my biggest gripe is just that many of the combinations simply don't look right on the table.

Just my opinion, I like allies, but I do think that the chart needs reigned in a bit.

And, if i remember correctly, back in 2nd, tyranids had the genestealer cult to ally with. Some of those old models were cool. (Although, I never really agreed tyranids should be aloud any allies)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And pretty much everything Alexander has said /\

 Omfgorzzz wrote:
Am I the only one that doesnt like the whole allies choice in 6th ed? I know some of you will use it to your advantage having something good from another codex(Just feels like a cheap and easy way out). But I rather just stick to one army and one army only. Find a way to counter your opponents useing one codex seems like the way to go....Anyway just my opinion. Do any others feel the same?

Well, I don't think 6th Edition forces you to use allies. You're free to play an army without allies.

Which is why 6th Edition is better than 5th Edition.

In 5th Edition, those who don't like allies were fine, but those who did get the short shrift.

In 6th Edition, both sides can play as they choose to: A better game for everyone!

rigeld2 wrote:
"What are allies?" Said every Tyranid player ever :-)

Slightly more agreeable food.

Anyway, back to the topic. My first reaction was to hate the idea with every fibre of my body.
I still dislike it, but I've grown used to it. It's just another way for GW to get more cash in its pocket. Personally I won't field any, but I won't think less of anyone who does, regardless of their reasons. (Yes, even TFG... but I think he sucks beforehand anyway so my opinion won't change due to his powergaming... again.)

I like it because it lets you try new possibilities, like a tech marine walking just behind a leman Russ executioner.