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.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'm pretty sure GK ally better with SoB than they do BT.

Right up until the GKs flay them alive and wear their scalps as hats.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
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.

Allies were worse back in 2nd because of there were zero controls. One plus on allies now is that they are definitely controlled. Got really fed up facing "Blood Angel" armies that included a single unit of less than 10 death company with a chaplain, a unit of 3 bikes, an inqusitor lord in terminator armor with displacer field and then a handful of high powered eldar special characters. At least now you can get a single farseer, but that far seer has to be supported by troops and can then include up to one of each none troop slot. So allies are really much less painful than they used to be.

The table just looks put together really haphazardly. I have to say I can see the point of those who don't want fluff involved in the table, even though fluff is more my preference. That said a straight non-fluff method would be to give every army perhaps 1 or 2 other forces they could ally with at the highest level, maybe 2 at the middle level and then maybe 4 or 5 they could ally with at the lowest level. Thus every force gets the same number of options for allies that can work completely together, sharing psychic powers and so on, but a handful that are not quite that great. 'Nids should get the same treatment as all other armies since we are taking fluff out of the equation. As it stands some armies are inundated with ally options and some are very limited or have none.

Skriker

Mythal wrote:

 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).

Everyone else gets to do it, why can't I? Arbitrarily punishing someone for choosing an army is dumb which is why me and those who play with me use a more inclusive chart.

I don't like them and I never play with them based on principal. Why not just let players create an army list choosing units from every different army?

 Kain wrote:

Mythal wrote:

 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).

Everyone else gets to do it, why can't I? Arbitrarily punishing someone for choosing an army is dumb which is why me and those who play with me use a more inclusive chart.

I mustn't have been clear - I said that the point wasn't about the rectitude of the Allies table in terms of balance; it was the disingenuous justification. Personally, I don't have any issue with folks house-ruling their own Allies table. As to arbitrary punishment for choosing an army, wait until you've had the same Codex for eight years, only for it to be replaced with an abortion of a WD article that illegalises all but one of your scoring unit options.

Mythal wrote:

 Kain wrote:

Mythal wrote:

 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).

Everyone else gets to do it, why can't I? Arbitrarily punishing someone for choosing an army is dumb which is why me and those who play with me use a more inclusive chart.

I mustn't have been clear - I said that the point wasn't about the rectitude of the Allies table in terms of balance; it was the disingenuous justification. Personally, I don't have any issue with folks house-ruling their own Allies table. As to arbitrary punishment for choosing an army, wait until you've had the same Codex for eight years, only for it to be replaced with an abortion of a WD article that illegalises all but one of your scoring unit options.

My wife plays SoBs among other things you know. I think I know the feeling by proxy.

 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.

Some of us who played Genestealer Cult would rather see the army come back the way it is supposed to, rather than see it get fluff raped with Allies.

Genestealer Cult was never Tyranids + Imperial Guard, or Tyranids + Cultists.

It was Genestealers plus those things. I'd be willing to allow the allies, but only if the Tyranid units allowed to an IGuard army were limited to Broodlords and Genestealers.


Once the actual Tyranids show up, the cultists get eaten alongside everyone else. There's no discrimination in the Tyranid society. Everyone who isn't a Tyranid, is food.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kain wrote: Everyone else gets to do it, why can't I? Arbitrarily punishing someone for choosing an army is dumb which is why me and those who play with me use a more inclusive chart.

For something to be arbitrary, it means for it to have occurred "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

Tyranids don't have allies because there's no reason for them to have them, and it doesn't fit into the system's universe.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 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.

Some of us who played Genestealer Cult would rather see the army come back the way it is supposed to, rather than see it get fluff raped with Allies.

Genestealer Cult was never Tyranids + Imperial Guard, or Tyranids + Cultists.

It was Genestealers plus those things. I'd be willing to allow the allies, but only if the Tyranid units allowed to an IGuard army were limited to Broodlords and Genestealers.


Once the actual Tyranids show up, the cultists get eaten alongside everyone else. There's no discrimination in the Tyranid society. Everyone who isn't a Tyranid, is food.

On the other hand I routinely see Grey knights and Necrons being short of total bros.

Clearly the matrix was never particularly fluffy to begin with.

And I do sometimes use the fly lords of terra Genestealer cult list and ally it with my tyranids.

I do. Each codex gives you enough to win any game with proper strategy and good dice rolls. I don't guard tanks and space marine beefiness to steam roll someone. Or, ya know, whatever.

 xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:
I do. Each codex gives you enough to win any game with proper strategy and good dice rolls. I don't guard tanks and space marine beefiness to steam roll someone. Or, ya know, whatever.

Some codices a great deal more skill in that department than others.

andrewm9 wrote:

 xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:
I do. Each codex gives you enough to win any game with proper strategy and good dice rolls. I don't guard tanks and space marine beefiness to steam roll someone. Or, ya know, whatever.

Some codices a great deal more skill in that department than others.

The Black Templars=40k on Hard mode.

 Zweischneid wrote:
1) List-building in 40K is always open to "abuse", adding allies doesn't worsen the problem much, if at all.

2) Allies are true old-school 40K. I grew up with a 40K were allies were the norm.

3) Allies (especially everyone-can-ally-with-everyone-apocalypse-allies) mitigate the heavy role of lists (and imbalanced Codexes) by giving every player potential access to every tool, making 40K - probably for the first time in history - a game somewhat competitive.

4) 16 Codex books without allies gives you 256 possible match-ups to play the game. 16 Codex books with up to (on average) 3 allies-option per Codex already give you already well over 4,000 possible match-ups to play the game. 16 Codex books with all-out Apocalypse everyone-can-be-allies-with-everyone gives you well over 65,000 possible match-ups to play the game. The sheer amount of diversity added to the game with allies (or taken away without allies) is mind-blowing.

5) Nobody is forcing anyone to take allies. If you prefer 40K without allies, don't take allies. It's an option that is there for people that like it, and an option you don't have to use if you don't. Everyone wins.

You know, when I started reading this post I was against allies in general and i've never had a need to use them in any of my 6th ed games so far, but you just hit it on the head with #2. How could I have forgotten that? There werent even codexes back then and nothing prohibited you from giving your space marines Shuriken catapults or your guardsman bolters. Thank you sir for reminding me about that. I'm all for allies now, bring it on. Gives me an excuse to use my nids with....oh wait...nm.

 Kain wrote:

andrewm9 wrote:

 xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:
I do. Each codex gives you enough to win any game with proper strategy and good dice rolls. I don't guard tanks and space marine beefiness to steam roll someone. Or, ya know, whatever.

Some codices a great deal more skill in that department than others.

The Black Templars=40k on Hard mode.

Black Templars = TRUE WIN!

I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, I agree with others that I play because I like them, warts and wall. I love Orks, and sticking in a unit with a power armor save feels really bizarre. And sometimes it just feels to break the theme (what, this warlock just happened to show up with a handful of Dire Avengers to help out my Waaagh? I guess the Eldar really are mysterious and unfathomable!)


On the other hand, it does make it easier to "plug and play" whatever models I like on the table. (Hey, I can't decide if I should start White Scars or IG...how about....BOTH!?!?)

 Kain wrote:
The Black Templars=40k on Hard mode.

Lol, you call that hard?
You should play Necrons and try to convince your friends that you play them because you love the models and think the 'spirit' of their rules are interesting.

I could play a naked Overlord with 2x 5 Warriors in a 1500pnt-game and people would still accuse me of making a cheesy list.

Kangodo wrote:

 Kain wrote:
The Black Templars=40k on Hard mode.

Lol, you call that hard?
You should play Necrons and try to convince your friends that you play them because you love the models and think the 'spirit' of their rules are interesting.

I could play a naked Overlord with 2x 5 Warriors in a 1500pnt-game and people would still accuse me of making a cheesy list.

Is it even legal to make a list that far under a points limit? I know some tournaments would at best laugh and say "okay where's the real list" or at worst kick you out for "wasting their time" if you tried that.

 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 agree with this, as an example it says that I can ally Grey Knights with my Black Templars, despite the fact that Black Templars completely and utterly hate all psychers. It's stupid and I refuse to do it (even though I really like the Grey Knights models)

scottmmmm wrote:

 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 agree with this, as an example it says that I can ally Grey Knights with my Black Templars, despite the fact that Black Templars completely and utterly hate all psychers. It's stupid and I refuse to do it (even though I really like the Grey Knights models)

The Black Templars Codex explicitly spells out that you're not allowed to ally with any psykers EXCEPT Grey Knights, so the hatred obviously doesn't extend as far as you seem to think.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

scottmmmm wrote:

 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 agree with this, as an example it says that I can ally Grey Knights with my Black Templars, despite the fact that Black Templars completely and utterly hate all psychers. It's stupid and I refuse to do it (even though I really like the Grey Knights models)

The Black Templars Codex explicitly spells out that you're not allowed to ally with any psykers EXCEPT Grey Knights, so the hatred obviously doesn't extend as far as you seem to think.

Yeah the whole "Chosen sons of the Emperor himself" thing outweighs the Templar's hatred of mutants.

 Kain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

scottmmmm wrote:

 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 agree with this, as an example it says that I can ally Grey Knights with my Black Templars, despite the fact that Black Templars completely and utterly hate all psychers. It's stupid and I refuse to do it (even though I really like the Grey Knights models)

The Black Templars Codex explicitly spells out that you're not allowed to ally with any psykers EXCEPT Grey Knights, so the hatred obviously doesn't extend as far as you seem to think.

Yeah the whole "Chosen sons of the Emperor himself" thing outweighs the Templar's hatred of mutants.

And the fact that the whole "psykers fall to Chaos, so they're unclean and can't fight alongside us!" schtick doesn't work that well when the psykers in question are Grey Knights.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

scottmmmm wrote:

 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 agree with this, as an example it says that I can ally Grey Knights with my Black Templars, despite the fact that Black Templars completely and utterly hate all psychers. It's stupid and I refuse to do it (even though I really like the Grey Knights models)

The Black Templars Codex explicitly spells out that you're not allowed to ally with any psykers EXCEPT Grey Knights, so the hatred obviously doesn't extend as far as you seem to think.

Yeah the whole "Chosen sons of the Emperor himself" thing outweighs the Templar's hatred of mutants.

And the fact that the whole "psykers fall to Chaos, so they're unclean and can't fight alongside us!" schtick doesn't work that well when the psykers in question are Grey Knights.

Fair point (just re-read that rule in the BT codex) but personally I still don't like it. If you really hate psykers and think that they are inherently liable to corruption then you would not want to fight alongside them at all, no exceptions. It feels like they tacked the line about the Grey Knights on to me.

Just my opinion though.

I feel as a houserule simply treating every army as an ally of convenience resolves most of these problems. This solves abuses with battle brothers and gives everyone ample choice in army selection.

I love it just for the reason that I can cobble together some of my small collections into playable armies. I think having to follow the force org chart makes it more balanced and makes players really think about thier army.

 dementedwombat wrote:


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

This! I think IG+SM allies is pretty damn fluffy. Tau + IG (as gue'vesa) is fluffy. It could/can be a great tool but as with anything can also be abused. I think it should have been more restricted.

scottmmmm wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

scottmmmm wrote:

 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 agree with this, as an example it says that I can ally Grey Knights with my Black Templars, despite the fact that Black Templars completely and utterly hate all psychers. It's stupid and I refuse to do it (even though I really like the Grey Knights models)

The Black Templars Codex explicitly spells out that you're not allowed to ally with any psykers EXCEPT Grey Knights, so the hatred obviously doesn't extend as far as you seem to think.

Yeah the whole "Chosen sons of the Emperor himself" thing outweighs the Templar's hatred of mutants.

And the fact that the whole "psykers fall to Chaos, so they're unclean and can't fight alongside us!" schtick doesn't work that well when the psykers in question are Grey Knights.

Fair point (just re-read that rule in the BT codex) but personally I still don't like it. If you really hate psykers and think that they are inherently liable to corruption then you would not want to fight alongside them at all, no exceptions. It feels like they tacked the line about the Grey Knights on to me.

Just my opinion though.

Lets put it this way, their Zeal and Hatred does not extend to them hating something that could explicitly have EVERY SINGLE ALLY in the Imperium turn on them should they turn on the "Emporer's Finest", being excommunicated and convicted of heresy is not something even they would stupidly push for.

I personally do not like allies. The idea is great but implemented poorly.

My belief is that when you play an army, you work with the strengths AND weaknesses of the army. Those weaknesses are what make each army unique.

 MRPYM wrote:
I personally do not like allies. The idea is great but implemented poorly.

My belief is that when you play an army, you work with the strengths AND weaknesses of the army. Those weaknesses are what make each army unique.

Then you should've played 40k before they removed allies.

Though it's not as if weaknesses are what makes an army, considering that many weaknesses are not intentional in most cases, but poorly implemented idea's or horrid balance choices. Like CSM having a horrid elite slot.

The only intentional weakness implemented within an army is tau's lack of CC..And that's also implemented poorly because kroot were meant to be taken to shore it up...But then Kelly made them worse in CC and now their best usage is as SNIPERS. Seriously, that's just bad implementation.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 MRPYM wrote:
I personally do not like allies. The idea is great but implemented poorly.

My belief is that when you play an army, you work with the strengths AND weaknesses of the army. Those weaknesses are what make each army unique.

Then you should've played 40k before they removed allies.

Though it's not as if weaknesses are what makes an army, considering that many weaknesses are not intentional in most cases, but poorly implemented idea's or horrid balance choices. Like CSM having a horrid elite slot.

The only intentional weakness implemented within an army is tau's lack of CC..And that's also implemented poorly because kroot were meant to be taken to shore it up...But then Kelly made them worse in CC and now their best usage is as SNIPERS. Seriously, that's just bad implementation.

What do you mean I should have played 40k before they removed allies?

 MRPYM wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 MRPYM wrote:
I personally do not like allies. The idea is great but implemented poorly.

My belief is that when you play an army, you work with the strengths AND weaknesses of the army. Those weaknesses are what make each army unique.

Then you should've played 40k before they removed allies.

Though it's not as if weaknesses are what makes an army, considering that many weaknesses are not intentional in most cases, but poorly implemented idea's or horrid balance choices. Like CSM having a horrid elite slot.

The only intentional weakness implemented within an army is tau's lack of CC..And that's also implemented poorly because kroot were meant to be taken to shore it up...But then Kelly made them worse in CC and now their best usage is as SNIPERS. Seriously, that's just bad implementation.

What do you mean I should have played 40k before they removed allies?

I wonder if you'd have played 40k before they removed allies, would you have felt the same as it was naturally occurring, rather then being reintroduced at long last.

I kinda agree with the OP. If someone has allied guard with their chaos, and modelled them as traitor guard, to make a themed/fluffy army, that's fine. But allying random armies together just to make a stronger list.....I'm not really a fan of.