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.

Don't know about you, but I certainly am.

Whatever they were thinking at GW to allow allies in the first place? They balance armies per races/chapters and do not take into account the insane combinations people come up with. It probably never even occurs to them to try any of the combinations, where practically anyone can ally with anyone (except for Nids, of course).

Allying is a way to bend the rules by ignoring the FOC, that itself should raise the flag. It also allows unbalanced mix of armies, e.g. Eldrad + guys. Luckily that was somewhat nerfed by the new Eldar codex, but still.

My original army is from Rogue Trader era Space Marines, whom I subsequently have re-painted in red. From 2nd edition times I happen to have Eldars. Maybe it is time to jump on the bandwagon and acquire some Tau or Dark Eldar?

Naw wrote:

Whatever they were thinking at GW to allow allies in the first place?

They want to sell models and make money.

Allies is just a terrible idea, we don't allow it in my gaming circle unless specifically requested (we might allow CSM and Daemons for example)

The only way Allies seems to be used is for horrifically fluff breaking, cheesy crap.

The only way Allies seems to be used is for horrifically fluff breaking, cheesy crap.

Fluff breaking cheesy crap wins tournaments.

That said some gamers make an effort in putting the fluff breaking cheesy crap into their armies. For example using heavily converted 'counts as' models (which in some cases are absolutely gorgeous) for their allied units. Mechanicum units that 'count as' Necrons, etc. The allies don't look out of place in many armies at all because they're modeled that way. Then the only thing they do is make the army way over the top in game terms.

When 6th ed came out I took eldar allies with my tau because i simply couldnt live against all the psychic powers. now that tau have a new codex i dont see the point. i dont need the eldar allies anymore. I prefer to run a pure army anyway. mixing and matching was ok with tau/eldar before since both were old codexs that needed a bit of a helping hand to even the playing field. now its almost insulting. like those people that still run pure paladin armies at tournements. thankfully i can actually win against that now with my tau.

The problem is that 6th was written in this rose colored bubble, where allies would be taken to "tell a story" and enhance the fun of friendly games.


The problem is that the real world is full of people who aren't interested in any of that stuff. And a lot of really obnoxious people who will use whatever they can to win regardless.

I don't see a problem.

Then again my main army can't have allies anyway. And it's all lunchmeat to a tyranid anyway.

A world without allies would be... so beautiful...

But, its here, for at least three years, until GW ends it so that you now have to spend MORE to get your allied detachment up to full sized! Mua-ha-ha! I just kinda deal with it. The only time allies is seriously annoying is when people just use it to throw in Psychic Defense, cause hey, go Psychic Nids. Like Dark Eldar are bad, and suddenly there's a random farseer. But not anymore! Or Tau, with a random Jaws rune priest. That game sucked.

So yeah, Allies can be annoying. And they can be fun! My Iron Warriors have a Basilisk now It's really not that bad, and there are really few circumstances now (with the changes to Eldar) where I dislike my opponent bringing Allies. I mean, Necrons are annoying, but if you want to give me orks to kill while I wait for the game to end with me hording the objectives, then sure!

Allies didn't break the game. Everyone besides me get them, but I wouldnt use them anyways, and there's almost always a "useless unit" tax that makes the allies less broken, like the 10 Veterans in that Vendetta, cause you had to buy both.

Personally, I have no problem with allies.
Every point of ally you spend, is a point less of the main force, and when I've been making lists - there's been very little that justifies those points going elsewhere.
Theres a few things that can - DE + Eldar for an Autarch to make WWPs reliable for example, pr CSM+CD, Sisters + Guard / GK, and others make sense and can be useful.

But then, I take the game as it is, no 'house rules' to stop this or that, no 1999+1pt games (stupid term anyway).
40K as described in the 40K rulebook, with all units available in 40K codexes, or has the 40K stamp from Forgeworld.

Allies, twin FoC and such are all just part of the game.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of allies at all.

I mean, GW's theory behind it (other than to sell, which they wouldn't blatantly tell us), is to create a story. I.e. where the Tau save the Eldar from a Nid invasion to try to get them to join the greater good. Frankly, in 5th, if I wanted to play that kind of game, I would have just done so, using House Rules, if my opponent was ok with it, which, frankly, he probably would have been. People don't need this allies system to create a narrative game.

That's my main quip about it, though I also hate the fact that some people use it to come up with cheesy combinations. Every army has advantages and disadvantages and, to be the best general possible, you need to work around those disadvantages. Doing so by taking allies is just cheap, in my opinion.

 Ovion wrote:
Personally, I have no problem with allies.
Every point of ally you spend, is a point less of the main force, and when I've been making lists - there's been very little that justifies those points going elsewhere.

It is not as if you picked up useless units when you choose your allies, but to get synergy by combinations that would not be balanced under any kind of playtesting. That is the problem here. Really, the cost of having allies should be higher and more thought should have been put into what kind of FOC you can field then.

40K as described in the 40K rulebook, with all units available in 40K codexes, or has the 40K stamp from Forgeworld.

Allies, twin FoC and such are all just part of the game.

FW is another can of worms, let's not go there in this thread.

I don't dislike the concept of allies per se but as lots of people have said on here it depends upon the way they're used and by whom.

I actually think fortifications have a lot to answer for, they have encouraged a style of play which is to sit behind the aegis line and thumb your nose, especially for melee weak armies who are using them as a way to nix cc troops. It is getting a bit boring repeatedly watching tau and IG lurking behind aegis lines and in bastions. It makes sense but it makes for a dull game indeed. I know several players who now stick the aegis line either in an elipsis in the centre of the field or across a corner and proceed to stay behind it before making a lst minute dash/deep strike for any objectives.
But I digress...

Some ally lists are perfectly fluffy.

SM + IG? Happens all the time in the fluff. It's *supposed* to work that way! The SM are the spear-tip that breaks open the enemy's defenses, the IG pour in to widen the gap and exploit the beachhead.

SOB + SM? Perfectly in keeping, *especially* if Ally SM army is the Black Templars.

Eldar + Tau? The Eldar like the Tau, the Tau are big on cooperation and alliances. Why *wouldn't* these two Xenos find common cause?

Necron + IG? Some Dynasties take slaves, or accept them as tribute. The Imperium continues to be a very feudal society. These IG will do as they're told, because their mind-shackled commander told them to.

CSM + IG? IG Regiments turn traitor all the time. Chaos also raises their own non-SM armies. Take a look at the Blood Pact.

...and that's just a few fluff-positive alliances. I'm sure other people can easily come up with more. What's really broken with the Ally Matrix is the degrees to which certain factions can or cannot ally with one another.

Allies are the only reason I started a CSM army, so I could ally them with Daemons.

I personally like Allies.

Sounds like someone had a bad time with an allies army, and that means no-one should be allowed to run them.

OOoooooor, you just had a bad time with a good combo. Everything has a weakness.

I also like allies. If allies were a woman, I'd saddle up next to her and ask her to help me assault xenos scum in 5 to 7 rounds of mortal combat using the 6th edition rule book of Warhammer 40k.

I like allies a lot. It gives us excuses to buy MOAR models so we can use them together with our main army

I hopy my necron army will have some Tau support one of these days. I just love the Riptide model and allies give me an excuse to be able to field one together with my main army

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
allies would be taken to "tell a story"

Problem is, it doesn't do this particularly well in some places. You've got Eldar and Dark Eldar as battle brothers, Black Templars being more willing to ally with xenos than Sisters and Space Marines as battle brothers to the Tau.

 Troike wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
allies would be taken to "tell a story"

Problem is, it doesn't do this particularly well in some places. You've got Eldar and Dark Eldar as battle brothers, Black Templars being more willing to ally with xenos than Sisters and Space Marines as battle brothers to the Tau.

In regards to the Eldar/DE alliance, hasn't it been said that while they are the best of friends the DE are still willing to save a Craftworld if need be since they are all still Eldar? The only difference is how they go about not getting tortured by Slanesh.

I don't think that warrants Battle Brothers, but Allies of Convenience maybe

Eldar and Dark Eldar are both fighting for the same cause—to not die. The only difference is how they go about they're goal.

Well, there is the whole morally opposed to each other on a core level. IE the Dark eldar represent everything that destroyed their entire civilization, so the Eldar don't particularly like that. However, they'd help the DE survive over any other race I imagine.

wilsjur wrote:
Eldar and Dark Eldar are both fighting for the same cause—to not die. The only difference is how they go about they're goal.

Fighting "to not die" could be said of most factions in the setting. And the Dark Eldar are more or less everything the Craftworld Eldar despise. They're pretty much the same guys who ruined Eldar society and bought Slaanesh into existence.

 washout77 wrote:
In regards to the Eldar/DE alliance, hasn't it been said that while they are the best of friends the DE are still willing to save a Craftworld if need be since they are all still Eldar? The only difference is how they go about not getting tortured by Slanesh.

I don't think that warrants Battle Brothers, but Allies of Convenience maybe

Yes, Convinience woud make sense from a fluff angle.

Personally. I think that the allies table was either made with both fluff and crunch in mind. Or it was made with just fluff in mind but done poorly. Either way, it doesn't mesh too well with the greater 40K fluff, at least in parts.

I just love how the new Wobbly Model Syndrome's comic is perfect for this discussion xD

Allies
Pros:
1:Allows me to still play armies that im collecting, no one in my group does less then 1850.
2: Allows me to make up some deficit, my Tau need some 3+ meat shields.
3: My flyer sucks, I need a better 1.
4: My friend fields an Achilles, I have nothing that can kill it, time to bring down haywire
Con
1:Cheesy shenanigans.....Oh wait i can do that with my codex already, 9 broadsides and 3 riptides?
2: Fluff breaking.....NVM the writers break fluff more times then anyone who brings Necron+ GK allies
3: People just take the good units becuase they can win with them.......I am not taking mandrakes because they suck.

 Sasori wrote:
Allies are the only reason I started a CSM army, so I could ally them with Daemons.

I miss the days when my daemon horde was considered part of my traitorous legion. However, I am enjoying using the new Daemons Codex, though it's tricky with only one Daemon Prince model with wings and a Keeper and two other Princes without.

When I do include Chaos Marine allies, I do feel that there isn't a very strong interaction between them, but they do tend to provide the guns that I'm otherwise missing.

If allies were used as the developers intended them to be used then I wouldn't have a problem with them. Unfortunately for every fluff/narrative combination that shows up, six WAAC combinations show up and that just leaves a poor taste on the table.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
Allies are the only reason I started a CSM army, so I could ally them with Daemons.

I miss the days when my daemon horde was considered part of my traitorous legion. However, I am enjoying using the new Daemons Codex, though it's tricky with only one Daemon Prince model with wings and a Keeper and two other Princes without.

When I do include Chaos Marine allies, I do feel that there isn't a very strong interaction between them, but they do tend to provide the guns that I'm otherwise missing.

Well, I consider my Chaos army, my "Fluffy Fun" army. It can still be competitive, as it provides things like Heldrakes, and a cheap level 3. for Daemons.

Allies is great. Perhaps some tweaking needs to be done in what the levels of alliance do and which factions get what level but the inclusion of allies is one of my favorite parts of 6ed.

If D. Eldar were not BB with CWE then no one would be. Eldar literally consider every other race in the games as barbarous animals who cannot even be trusted to speak without trying to kill themselves or an eldar...D. eldar (as was said in another thread) are your drunken, drugged out, slutty sister or brother. They may be obnoxious and you may not always trust them but you still help them out when a stranger attacks them.

 ansacs wrote:
Allies is great. Perhaps some tweaking needs to be done in what the levels of alliance do and which factions get what level but the inclusion of allies is one of my favorite parts of 6ed.

If D. Eldar were not BB with CWE then no one would be. Eldar literally consider every other race in the games as barbarous animals who cannot even be trusted to speak without trying to kill themselves or an eldar...D. eldar (as was said in another thread) are your drunken, drugged out, slutty sister or brother. They may be obnoxious and you may not always trust them but you still help them out when a stranger attacks them.

One word; Tau.

 Kain wrote:

 ansacs wrote:
Allies is great. Perhaps some tweaking needs to be done in what the levels of alliance do and which factions get what level but the inclusion of allies is one of my favorite parts of 6ed.

If D. Eldar were not BB with CWE then no one would be. Eldar literally consider every other race in the games as barbarous animals who cannot even be trusted to speak without trying to kill themselves or an eldar...D. eldar (as was said in another thread) are your drunken, drugged out, slutty sister or brother. They may be obnoxious and you may not always trust them but you still help them out when a stranger attacks them.

One word; Tau.

If you go by the shadowy hints in the fluff, then the Tau are like the Eldars neglected child - they see them as the best chance in the fight against chaos, and not half as backwards as the other races.