Do you use allies?

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.

**toxic_wisdom**

@ Orkhead = how are you allying Iyanden with Eldar ?.. that supplement is an extension of the parent codex, not a separate source like Farsight.

**wuestenfux**

Well, in friendly games, yes. However, in RTT games, no. Then I run pure Necrons or pure Eldar. The ally detachment comes with an overhead or tax that limits the other choices.

**Mr Morden**

I love the idea of Allies - I just wish they had created the chart with some respect for the actual background rather than whats going to sell well - ie Tau Allied with everyone.

Many of the people I play with are not keen on the Ally chart due to some of the combinations which seem less to balance the field but to make strong armies even more powerful - again see Eldar /Tau.

**StarTrotter**

I use allies. That being said, my group of players are more casual with a tendency to add in crummy units for whatever reason. We also edit the rules of the game sometimes to our own purpose. Many of our games are 2v1 or 2v2. Fluff wise many would be illogical or heresy so we threw out the concept of allies of convenience. For an individual using two armies, we use the allies limit on unit (1 hq 1 troop etc) but threw out the battle brothers and apocolypse restraints.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ansacs wrote:
I really like the allies mechanism. I regularly play CD+CSM, IG+SM, and CD/CSM+IG. I even a small allies only detachment of SoB (which I had never gotten to play for over a decade because I never intended to collect more than the HQs and a single sister squad).

For everyone that talks about power gaming and allies abuse. Did any of you play WAAC players in 5ed? There were basically 4 armies and builds that existed at all with little to no variation; BA jump priests, IG leafblower, SW long fangs, and GK. That was it. Now there are sevel combinations of armies which are very very good; IG/SW, Necron/CSM, CD/CSM, CD, IG/SM, Tau/SM, Tau/Tau, Tau/CWE, CWE/Tau, CWE, CWE/DE, SM/SM, SM/SW, DA/SM, Necron, and probably some I am not thinking of. All of these armies can and have taken GTs and are entirely capable of fighting on an even level with top level armies. How is going from 4 builds to 15+ builds a bad thing?

I also think there is a major misunderstanding of BB allies and what that means. In my mind they should be considered just trustworthy enough to be allowed into your units, ie America/France in the American revolution where Americans were convinced the French would turn on us and try to conquer us immediately afterward. Or American/USSR in WW2 where we were ready to turn around the next minute to fight each other but we trusted each other enough to have attache officers embedded. Allies of convenience are those who would not deign to ever join the other persons unit for any reason and desperate allies are stuff that if you look away from them they will try to steal your soul or convert you into a meat puppet. They probably should have named them differently and there are plenty of arguments that can be made of what the allies matrix should look like but I cannot fathom how any fluff bunny worth his fluffiness could ever hate a system that allows IG+SM and CSM+CD to be fielded. Heck I would go further and say that SM without IG above 500 pts is not fluffy and CSM with named characters committed to a fight should probably have some daemons. The worst offender is inquisition without IG support. What type of inquisitor doesn't hijack the local IG regiment?

My inner fluff bunny rages at the SoB not being BB with GK(inqusitor) and working terribly with Black Template, GK not getting along with IG (until the inquisitor supplement comes out that is. My problem is until recently inquisitors were not BB with IG), tau being BB SM but not IG (to represent guard going to tau side), not even a slight way to make Nids work with IG as a pseudo genestealer cult, and finally CSM and CD not being BB with IG.

**Lobokai**

We were running allies in our club in 5th. We've also allowed a Lord of War choice that either replaces your Heavy or an HQ slot (way before HH or Escalation). Guess we're 40k trend setters.

**Robbiedbee**

I voted "Yes, allows me to field units I like despite any inconvenience", because that's probably the closest to my option. I simply can't decide which army to go with, and I feel I can get the best of both worlds this way. Plus, my armies would either be Codex Marines with Blood Angels, or Codex Marines with Dark Angels.

**wowsmash**

As with almost anything GW does lately. Good idea but bad execution. A lot of the chart doesn't make since as to who would ally with who. Most of it is just cheese though. We usually don't allow it in our group.

**Boggy79**

Where's the Not Yet option?

I'm not against allies, just haven't tried it yet

**PrinceRaven**

No one wants to ally with me because I keep eating their diplomats.

Spoiler:

**Jangustus**

Yes, because I have 3000pts of uncompetitive space marines (my units and loadouts are not ideal), and allies means I can use some of them with a full IG list, and have them be competitive.

(and it gave me an reason to finish converting/painting some of them)

**Thud**

I have both Eldar and Tau, which are the two worst codices in the game, so naturally I ally them together to even stand a chance. It's just no fun to play if those cheesy Ork, Dark Angels and Grey Knight players take out one or more of my Wave Serpents.

**Skriker**

Boniface wrote:
Just a point for discussion.

I don't personally use them but if I was to play a doubles type game or some campaign I would think they were alright.

I have made some amendments to the poll in hindsight.

Only really have an issue with allies when they are used by WAAC players to build uber lists that just make playing games against them annoying. Given that the majority of my playing is with the same group this isn't a normal issue I have to face as no one in the group plays that way. Before 6th added allies back in we were already toying with combining chaos marines and chaos daemons in a single force with minimal difficulty or issue.

Allies would be less problematic if there was a decent *and* consistent method to provide allies to all armies. Either do it fluff based which would skew allying in the favor of Imperium players, but would at least make sense. Or give every army access to an identical number of forces to ally with at each level of availability. Maybe even giving everyone the ability to ally with any other army at the lowest level. Instead we get some based on fluff (no allies for 'nids), and plenty of others that make zero sense according to the fluff (like space marine chapters that would be happier allying with xenos like tau other than other space marine chapters). Giving Tau the ability to ally with practically everyone was a nice bone to throw them while their codex was still ancient, but now is just silly as they don't need such a crutch anymore.

Skriker

**welshhoppo**

I use Chaos Daemons with my Chaos Space Marines because it would be silly if I didn't.

I think the Allies system is good in theory, but in practise the entire table needs to be redone, and perhaps the bonuses for being battle brothers should be altered so it doesn't seem like the best of both worlds.

Oh, and they should cut out this silly 'supplements can ally with their original codex' nonsense, I thought the whole point of a supplement was too add a new dimension to an existing army, not to give you more potential for cheese.

**Orkhead**

toxic_wisdom wrote:
@ Orkhead = how are you allying Iyanden with Eldar ?.. that supplement is an extension of the parent codex, not a separate source like Farsight.

I was under the assumption that supplements can ally with their host codex am I playing this wrong?

And by the way I am a Ork player and do not ally with any one as I can't see them playing nice with them selves not alone anyone else.

Like others have said their is diffenatly good possibilities with the ally idea. Just needed a slight tweak or 2.

**Selym**

I take allies because I get rofl stomped when I don't.

With them I get slightly less rofl stopmed.

I don't feel much better.

**King Pariah**

Sometimes for fun

**Griddlelol**

Where's the option:
"I just want to"? You know, like a neutral response.

I field allies because I like the mans I painted. It just so happens that they're a deadly combination.

**necrondog99**

Thud wrote:
I have both Eldar and Tau, which are the two worst codices in the game, so naturally I ally them together to even stand a chance. It's just no fun to play if those cheesy Ork, Dark Angels and Grey Knight players take out one or more of my Wave Serpents.

Say what?

**sierra 1247**

I use allies because as a guard player in a Meta full of Crons I do quite like to have a slight chance... not lose all my armour in the first turn and have to attempt to take out Annhalition barges with lasguns...

**Skriker**

necrondog99 wrote:
Thud wrote:
I have both Eldar and Tau, which are the two worst codices in the game, so naturally I ally them together to even stand a chance. It's just no fun to play if those cheesy Ork, Dark Angels and Grey Knight players take out one or more of my Wave Serpents.

Say what?

It is called sarcasm nercrondog.

Skriker

**erick99**

I like allies. I get to use more of my armies more often.

Except when:

PrinceRaven wrote:
No one wants to ally with me because I keep eating their diplomats.

Spoiler:

_e

**Bobthehero**

Where's the ''yes, because I need allies to use all my models and I need all my models to hit a decent amount of pts''

My main army is the Siege Regiment, but I ally in the Armoured Brigade to field my Hades Drill and my extra 10 men squad of Grenadiers.

**Knockagh**

I like the idea and was eagerly awaiting the new rules. But I couldnt believe some of the combos that were allowed.

The game is designed around a made up history, battles and allied relationships should be fought within that context. No silly alliances allowed!

**OminusMarine**

I don't run allies w/ either of my armies.
For me, I like to have a solid cohesion of models and color schemes, not some motly mix of different units.
On a side note, I'm quite cheap and don't like going out and buying 2 codices and double the amount of models just to have them in an army for their perks/benefits.

**Pouncey**

I use allies all the time for two reasons.

1- the custom fluff I made linking my friend's Chapter of Marines and my Order of Sororitas.

2- it allows me to field the models I made of my friend's RP character while also fielding my Sisters of Battle.

Sometimes I field a Sisters army without allies when I start to feel that the allies requirements are gimping my army too much at the lowish points values I play at (1000 to 1250 points or so), but I include one of my models of my friend's RP character as a counts-as Jacobus.

**Orock**

No, because it makes a joke of an already flawed system for competitive gaming. No one remotely takes it serious in the tabletop gaming world for tournaments. How a game like warmahordes with cheezy combos a plenty has respect for this and 40k does not anymore is just sad.

Plugging your armies weakness with another armies strengths is stupid. Sure back in the previous editions, it meant some armies would be top tier. But you could at least run counter armies to predict the majority of power lists and at least give em a game. Now the only things that counter power lists are similar lists. Mabye its just my remembering it different than it really is, but I don't remember a single edition where I could count the army combos that could actually contend in a decent sized tourney on one hand.

**Jayden63**

The idea behind allies is a good idea. The execution and the way the players have abused them totally runs the experience. As such, it pretty much has ruined this edition for me.