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.

Yes allies can be used to make up for weaknesses in your primary army so it has the smell of cheating.

I like the Inquisition. It is the reason why I bought IG and SM's as allies in the old codex.
I like Chaos. It is the reason why I bought demons and CSM's and all the various cult types they were all one group in the old codex's.

There is ample fluff out there to justify most alliances.

It is a shame about the Tyranids if any group could use allies but as pointed out: they do not play with their food.

It is these Chimera lists that make it tough:

Orks and Tau scare me to no end.
When I think of Tau and CSM I think of the below picture:

If you play Tau, you're not old school.

 Accipiter wrote:
Does any one play doubles tournaments/games?

At my local GW, we used to have em all the time. My friend and I always had the craziest combo: BA with Daemons or CSM.

As for the allies system, I think it make the game more interesting. Sure you have silly armies (I hate playing vs CSM/Necrons or GK/Necrons), but its still a game - so have fun with it.

Lucarikx

Wait... Tau playing = can't be old school?
That's a weird statement.
Depends how you define old school I guess. Sounds a little like saying if you use anything but an abacus your not old school.
Tau are like iPhones of the 40k universe newish fresh and way better than your old Nokia 3210.
It's like an upgrade

 Talizvar wrote:

When I think of Tau and CSM I think of the below picture:

That is indeed perfect for when I have Broadsides supporting Plague Marines.

Boniface wrote:
Wait... Tau playing = can't be old school?
That's a weird statement.
Depends how you define old school I guess. Sounds a little like saying if you use anything but an abacus your not old school.
Tau are like iPhones of the 40k universe newish fresh and way better than your old Nokia 3210.
It's like an upgrade

To tell you the truth I think Tau are more like Samsung Galaxy's

Lucarikx

Love it. Although I do feel like my previous comment erroded my original point slightly.

There is a lot of Tau hate.

Back on topic I don't think outdated codices count as much with allies. It's not really fair to have an army with little/no AA versus some of the current stuff. Like dark angels with little AA (although this seems to be improving)

I know DA are new. Was my other army for many years.

Boniface wrote:
Maybe I'm too old-school... I dunno, but i feel like allies is the equivalent of cheating.

I play Tau (Yes, i've read/heard the rants about overpoweredness) but i feel that if i added, say, eldar i would just make an apparently harder army impossible to beat.

I feel so much so that i refuse to play anything other than pure tau despite how easy it would be to write it into the fluff.

anyone else feel like this?

Really depends on why you are doing it. If you are doing it to tell a cool story, make a neat force that specifically fits the fluff for your campaign involvement allies are awesome. Also some allies have long been meant to go together in the genre: CSMs and Chaos Daemons; Marines and IG are the obvious ones.

Where it gets annoying is where everyone and their brother in a LGS all have eldar contingents on their armies ONLY so that the can get a farseer to doom enemy units and wield other psychic might. It gets boring really quick and just makes for stupid games. The allies system is always going to be open to abuse from those people who want to munchkin out their force in order to WAAC. To be fair, though, without the ally rules these types of players would just figure out how to achieve their WAAC aims within their own codex. They'd still have the same mentality in games so removing allies wouldn't make their play style go away.

The implementation of the allies table just defies even the simplest of logic to explain the whole thing. How can multiple space marine chapters ally more effectively with XENOS forces than with each other? I don't care if your chapter has a rivalry with another you are both still space marine chapters under the emperor's will. Makes zero sense to me. Perhaps if allies were an optional rule that required opponent approval before a game people would be less inclined to try and munckin them all the time. The fluff has often portrayed the eldar attitudes towards the lesser races: Those they are allied with today are just enemies that they are not fighting yet. Can't imagine why a farseer would waste her powers on such non-eldar filth. Anyone allying with eldar should always be at the worst level possible to account for this IMNSHO.

Skriker

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
If you play Tau, you're not old school.

So?
I've seen some old-school models, I am glad the game and the models have improved over time

Maybe you are just joking..
But it's out of place in a thread where I am already considered a cheater because I like Tau and I want to play them as allies (don't have the funding to instantly buy an army).

I think the allies table needs a serious rework. Basically they should have made it fluffy with additional rules. All imperial ally well together guard also ally with chaos to allow traitor guard.

Other armies should have rules for example all space marines suffer not the alien to live, burn the xenos and the heretic etc. this should mean desperate allies at best so the allies suffer a leadership hit or something like the flee rules from distrusted allies in whfb where if they flee through a unit they take D6 hits etc.

Dark angels should have to roll a dice for every enemy squad leader killed on a 6 it is the fallen and once he's dead they lose interest in the fight and take a ld hit to represent the fact that their primary objective has been reached and they are unwilling to sit around and take losses now that the fallen is taken.

Stuff like that would really make things more interesting on the allies table.

 Kain wrote:

Thokt wrote:
Allies are incredibly lame IMO. The armies are what they are - allies really breaks up the spirit of the game for me. I don't think allies are particularly fluffy either - just because something needs fluff to be explained does not make it fluffier than anything else.

Beyond that, I think the tables start to look pretty silly when one game has four mix n match forces on them.

So Chaos Daemons and Chaos Space Marines must part ways?

What about the Guard and Space Marines/SoBs?

Or the Tau and Eldar (who do have many reasons to be together)?

What about Ork mercenaries?

You got me there Kain. I did balk at Daemons and CSM being separated, and for fluffier or odd scenario battles Imperium/Imperium allies seem alright to me. Anything else though, such as Ork as mercs, Tau with Eldar, etc. is too much. The fact is, most players aren't taking allies due to fluff reasons, but instead to cover weaknesses in their primary army. And that, is not a system I'm a fan of.

 GreyHamster wrote:
That is indeed perfect for when I have Broadsides supporting Plague Marines.

Ah yes sorry, I was thinking of this little fellow like the rabbit from the Quest for the Holy Grail "That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on! ".
Lucky my BT's have the grenade of Antioch.

Thokt wrote:

 Kain wrote:

Thokt wrote:
Allies are incredibly lame IMO. The armies are what they are - allies really breaks up the spirit of the game for me. I don't think allies are particularly fluffy either - just because something needs fluff to be explained does not make it fluffier than anything else.

Beyond that, I think the tables start to look pretty silly when one game has four mix n match forces on them.

So Chaos Daemons and Chaos Space Marines must part ways?

What about the Guard and Space Marines/SoBs?

Or the Tau and Eldar (who do have many reasons to be together)?

What about Ork mercenaries?

You got me there Kain. I did balk at Daemons and CSM being separated, and for fluffier or odd scenario battles Imperium/Imperium allies seem alright to me. Anything else though, such as Ork as mercs, Tau with Eldar, etc. is too much. The fact is, most players aren't taking allies due to fluff reasons, but instead to cover weaknesses in their primary army. And that, is not a system I'm a fan of.

It's heavily implied (and outright bashed in our faces in Xenology) that the Eldar had a hand in forming the Tau into what they are, and the Eldar are often the first to form alliances with reasonable factions to deal with a greater threat.

And Ork mercenaries are a fact of life, even the Imperium uses them (heck even a PURITAN inquisitor used them in Retribution) they're reliable, they get the job done, and theyre relatively cheap due to their nonstandard method of asking for payment.

Honestly I'd have no complaints with the allies systems if Tyranids could take Tau, Ork, Eldar, and Imperial Guard allies to represent genestealer cults.

My point is two different play styles. It's not cheating and not even cheesy. Some people are in the game for the game, like challenge and get labeled "WAAC," when a fluffy bunny gets thumped.

It's different styles. Allies was introduced to make money. It's a gateway drug. Regardless of fluff, GW wants you build small armies, get hooked, and then expand.

Also, covering an armies weakness is fluffy. If a unit of space Marines know they are lacking in X and that happens to present itself in either some Bros or unexpected allies, they'd take advantage of that situation.

All I hear is butt hurt from the forge the narrative folks. "Allies are only cool if it makes sense." To you. If someone wants orks and crons, go for it. I don't need a reason to play a rousing game of shoot that guy. Fundamentally this is an argument against people who want a tough challenging game versus fluff folks. Cheating is breaking the rules. It's in the core book, thus not breaking the rules to do it.

Sure, you can fluff anything, but I think what bothers most players about allies is that it's an immense change to an element of the game which had proceeded largely untouched by previous editions. 40k without allies had a distinctly mavericky maverick feel to its forces. I like a challenge, but I'm not interested in the ability of others to create nigh flawless forces via mix n' match in a fairly unbalanced rules set. When I see two armies as one on the table it just feels wrong, probably because its done for all the wrong reasons. And since the OP asked if it feels like cheating, not whether or not any one literally believes that it is cheating, it's a fair answer to say that yes, it does feel

a bit like cheating

.

 dementedwombat wrote:
I don't have any objection to them other than the fact that the allies matrix is a bit wonky at times. I don't use them, but that's mostly because I don't feel like buying a second codex and some models for an army I might never actually play.

To summarize, I think it's a pretty cool idea that probably didn't get executed as well as it could have.

Definitely this. I look at some of the allies matrix kind of like my dog looks at me when i talk to her : head cocked to one side with a "whatchu talkin' 'bout Willis" sort of expression.


That said ... I do like the allies matrix. I think it makes for fun and thematic armies and battles. It also gives me a reason to stray into other armies that i like, without feeling like i have to go whole hog or i'm wasting my money. Clearly there is a marketing angle to this, and from that perspective, it's working (at least on me). If i couldn't take space marines or guard as allies with my Tau, then i likely would not purchase SM or Guard, etc.



-- Haight

I agree. Mostly because literally no one is doing it for fluffy reasons, and only to get that extra cheap weapon or character that their army can't have

 FreddieTau6 wrote:
i've used allies since the start of 6th but only when i was wanting to start a new army, par example i took my main army at the time which was Blood Angels and allied in some Tau because i was wanting to start a tau force and utilised allies there to try out different units with my tau and continued to until my Tau force was big enough to stand on its own 2 Hoofs!

then like wise i used Eldar allies with my Tau when i decided i wanted to start and Eldar army and so the process repeated, now i have Fully fledged armies of space marines, tau and eldar and use no allies.

that for me was a perfect use of the system, and my 2 pennies on it

I like your thought process there.

Kangodo wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
If you play Tau, you're not old school.

So?
I've seen some old-school models, I am glad the game and the models have improved over time

Maybe you are just joking..
But it's out of place in a thread where I am already considered a cheater because I like Tau and I want to play them as allies (don't have the funding to instantly buy an army).

There's no harm in not being old-school. It means you're not old.

But the true "old school" of 40K, RT & 2nd Edition, actually did have allies, and Tau didn't exist back then.

It was the "middle school" (and, appropriately enough, the quality and depth of the game was about on par for what you'd expect from middle schoolers) where allies were eliminated.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
But the true "old school" of 40K, RT & 2nd Edition, actually did have allies, and Tau didn't exist back then.

How did it work compared to in 6th? I recall hearing something about Sisters being allies for Imperial factions back then, but that's all I know.

It sounds like most of you at least have the option for allies I really want to run some just so I can do some cool fluffy lists or maybe use the double force org but everyone at my local shop will only play 1999+1 or 1999 + 501 no allies allowed games even the tournaments are set up this way. I honestly think it is against the rules to do this actually more so than the use of allies or double force org is cheating. What do you guys think?

 Troike wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
But the true "old school" of 40K, RT & 2nd Edition, actually did have allies, and Tau didn't exist back then.

How did it work compared to in 6th? I recall hearing something about Sisters being allies for Imperial factions back then, but that's all I know.

Each army had a list of allies, and typically they were part of the Support allowance, which was typically 50% of the total points.

Sisters had an Allies Allowance of 25% that didn't come out of Support. But that was mostly because the original Sisters list was fairly small.

Allies weren't really very well regulated, lol. But, then again, these were the days before netlists being everywhere, so I never noticed any hardcore abuse of allies. In fact, very few people even used them in my local meta.

But, of course, like all things 2nd Edition, mileage varies. Lots of people talk about local metas where WAAC was normal, as were virus grenades and vortex grenades. Those things were communally banned in mine and were never an issue.

 Kain wrote:


Honestly I'd have no complaints with the allies systems if Tyranids could take Tau, Ork, Eldar, and Imperial Guard allies to represent genestealer cults.

I would. No doubt we'd see minimum guard (ie the actual cultists) then a load of tanks, artillery, Vendetta/Valkerie and all the other goodies that absolutely wouldn't fit a cult army.

Honestly Genestealer cults could be dealt with the same as Chaos cults, a single troop choice with a few lacklustre upgrades.

The only thing that bugs me about allies is that upsets the idea the point costs on codices are only balanced against the codex. With allies that really has to change. 12 points from one codex really must work out to 12 points in another codex. Maybe they are working towards that thanks to taking multilevel. Editions to update some codices it's kind of broken now. No one can really tell me that a Canoness has the same worth a Dark Angel Librarian of that an Ecclesiarchy Priest is worth almost as much as a Blood Angel Sanguinary Priest or almost twice as much as a Grey Knight Ordo Malleus Inquisitor.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of allies. In fact my 8000 points worth of Imperial Guard grew out of some allies for my Sisters in Apocalypse, but with lack of consistent design philosophy, it kind of turns the point system on its ear.

 TheKbob wrote:
It's different styles. Allies was introduced to make money. It's a gateway drug. Regardless of fluff, GW wants you build small armies, get hooked, and then expand.

Not sure why they changed gears, I had seven different 2k (at least) 40k armies before 6ed. I'm totally arsed now that they've shifted into plastic drug dealer mode.

I like allies for a number of reasons, possibilities exist that don't always set well with me, that will be focused on by players who care more about WAAC at all costs. Personally I'm looking forward to using the Allies matrix for "counts as" SoB sternguard with combi-weapons in a Pod. I know SoB don't have pods, but I don't really care, I have a lot of stormbolter SoB that I need to do something with. Filing off a barrel, slapping a flamer or melta bit on there and calling it a Godwyn-Diaz combi-flamer/combi-bolter is fine by me. Also the only way I get to field the SoB squad on Bikes I scratchbuilt back in the days of the 3ed black book.

My list of Codex Space Marines I've got planned as "counts as" SoB starts with Korsarro Khan, command squad on bikes, above mentioned Sternguard in a pod, squad of SoB scouts with packs, cloaks, and sniper rifles, a flying storm talon thingie combined with all those cathedral and candle bits from the DA flyer and a Vindicator with a huge fluer-dy-lys on the shield. Because there just isn't a bigger bolter than the one the Vindicator totes around. Holy trinity on outflank will be fun.

the bringing in other armies to strengthen your weakness doesnt bug me, though i dont do it becuase i prefer whole armies. Some of the Battle Brothers however are capable of pulling some really cheesy strats...and that i find annoying.

My only desired allies follows along the line of a fellow Wolves plyers; fluff builds for fun.

BA Librarian with Death Company = 13th Co and Wulfen
IG platoons = Aettguard

Not the best use of points in an allied chart and not using anything from the allied army to plug holes in my army list. I would just like to have some semblance of a 13th Co roaming the battlefield or members of the Aettguard in play for fluff reasons.

MarsNZ wrote:

 Kain wrote:


Honestly I'd have no complaints with the allies systems if Tyranids could take Tau, Ork, Eldar, and Imperial Guard allies to represent genestealer cults.

I would. No doubt we'd see minimum guard (ie the actual cultists) then a load of tanks, artillery, Vendetta/Valkerie and all the other goodies that absolutely wouldn't fit a cult army.

Honestly Genestealer cults could be dealt with the same as Chaos cults, a single troop choice with a few lacklustre upgrades.

So?

You get to do it, why can't I?

Also cultist type squads would be useless in an army that already has gants and gaunts.

 Kain wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:

 Kain wrote:


Honestly I'd have no complaints with the allies systems if Tyranids could take Tau, Ork, Eldar, and Imperial Guard allies to represent genestealer cults.

I would. No doubt we'd see minimum guard (ie the actual cultists) then a load of tanks, artillery, Vendetta/Valkerie and all the other goodies that absolutely wouldn't fit a cult army.

Honestly Genestealer cults could be dealt with the same as Chaos cults, a single troop choice with a few lacklustre upgrades.

So?

You get to do it, why can't I?

Also cultist type squads would be useless in an army that already has gants and gaunts.

I think his point was that they would no longer accurately represent Genestealer Cults. And you make the point yourself: when you say you want Cults, what you really want is artillery and fliers (which there's nothing inherently wrong with; if it's in the rules, you're allowed to do whatever you want in order to win, whether or not it's to everyone's taste). I use Imperial Guard to counts-as my Zealots, which were a legal Troops choice for me until the WD minidex - run them with a hell-raising preacher (counts-as Lord Commissar). It's not the most efficient use of a few hundred points, but it's fluffy as hell - especially with Kyrinov to whip them into an unstoppable frenzy, and a Canoness (Errant - I loved that book).

Read through the full thread, and I gotta chime in that the idea behind it was a good one, just poorly handled. CSM and CDs allying? Makes perfect sense. Crons allying with GK? Wtf? My BT make crappy allies with GK, and those are supposed to be the only psykers BT are okay with. The BT book even suggests they hate all psykers except GK ones. It doesn't say they hate all of them, but hate the GK ones a teensie bit less. Hopefully a 'stealer cult supplement will come out that can ally with Nids, because you guys really got the short end of the stick. Hell, it's possible that my memory is wrong, but I'm pretty sure GK ally better with SoB than they do BT. Does that seem okay to anyone else?