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.

IMO they implemented it poorly. Battlebrothers shouldn't be default, but it should be reserved for a few combinations where it's relevant (Eldar/DE for eg.) Most combos (SM/IG etc) should be Allies of Convenience. That's an accurate title and more accurately reflects what happens when these forces fight together (Ie - marines keep largely to themselves, they don't take a guard platoon each to lead)

edit: Just read Jy2, basically what he said.

EDIT-removed

Well I don't know, you tell me... my pal is planning a Tau Chaos mix, with R' Varnas, Riptides, and HeldrakeS.

Fight for the Greater Good!

I think allies should have been limited to just something like the Formations instead. There's a great fluffy answer to it as well, Tau support the Eldar and sent a small unit of firewarriors with stealth suits to aid them. Make the Formations 0-1 and use the current ally chart.

There would still be some really good combos probably, but it would be a lot more limited and controlled. And certainly better than allowing both.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
There are certain ridiculousness to it. *COUGH* ORK/ NECRON ARMIES*COUGH* but it give a bit more freedom to players with structuring their army.

I run a list of Necrons with an allied detachment of Orks sometimes. But this was all started because of a campaign idea an Ork player came up with where my Necron army imprisoned a bunch of his Orks and infested them with scarabs.

I sorta like the idea of the allied list, but agree with the consensus here that the chart is non-sensical. To me, it seems like a transparent ploy to give you a reason to start collecting a new army.

poolio wrote:


I sorta like the idea of the allied list, but agree with the consensus here that the chart is non-sensical. To me, it seems like a transparent ploy to give you a reason to start collecting a new army.

It's like boredom and nerfhammer isn't enough for GW.

I think there should be an option in the poll for something a lot of people is saying: "the concept is cool, but the allies chart is stupid".

 Mr Morden wrote:
Great idea - poor execution in terms of how and who allies with whom

This.

Some allies make a lot of sense. Certain armies fight together frequently; IG can easily be used as proxy PDFs, private armies, traitors, conscripts, frateris militia (sp?), allied with marines as the imperial army, etc. so I'm really happy to see additions like that, which allow some pretty fun fluff lists representing different forces using a mix & match principle.

However, I think they should have been way more restrictive so you don't just wind up with a bunch of mix & match BS that's pretty clearly based on performance more than aesthetic or fun. They already had Apocalypse for "do whatever you want."

I like it, since FW allows mixing all their armies with everything, I can ally the Siege Regiment with the Assault Brigade list and field all my favorite units.

I don't actually have an issue with Allies, the Allies Matrix, or Battle Brothers. What I do have an issue with, what I feel is the mechanic that us breaking the game, is that Allies take up a separate detachment from the primary FoC. If we were limit to a single FoC per army regardless of the number of factions represented, everyone would have a balanced experience with the game. At the moment, you can legally have four radically different factions in the same army, each with its own FoC: Marine or IG primary, Chaos allies, Inquisitors, and a Tau firebase. Now add in fortifications and a superheavy. Now add a second Primary, second Allies, etc.

Might as well play all games as Apocalypse, seeing as GW is throwing away their FoC.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I don't actually have an issue with Allies, the Allies Matrix, or Battle Brothers. What I do have an issue with, what I feel is the mechanic that us breaking the game, is that Allies take up a separate detachment from the primary FoC. If we were limit to a single FoC per army regardless of the number of factions represented, everyone would have a balanced experience with the game. At the moment, you can legally have four radically different factions in the same army, each with its own FoC: Marine or IG primary, Chaos allies, Inquisitors, and a Tau firebase. Now add in fortifications and a superheavy. Now add a second Primary, second Allies, etc.

Might as well play all games as Apocalypse, seeing as GW is throwing away their FoC.

SJ

QFT.
At <1000 points you can have four heavy support slots, and four FA slots, if you only take the primary and one ally.
Both of which my meta is seeing heavy spam in.

Has GW screwed up the game with Allies?

No.

Some allies were flirted with as mentioned with "Lost and Damned", Armageddon, Inquisition so it is formalized and everyone gets a shot.

There is more complexity to army selection for those min/max players, it is sufficiently complex that there is no auto-win combo that has emerged yet.

For those who like their fluff, it is a godsend.

For GW more models sold = win, win, epic win.

GW does not host tournaments so as they like to say: it is our "problem" to agree to how tournaments or "friendly" games are conducted, they are out of it as far as they are concerned (even though they still write the rules we must abide by but we can change with a roll off of the dice.)

 Talizvar wrote:
Has GW screwed up the game with Allies?

No.

Yes

Some allies were flirted with as mentioned with "Lost and Damned", Armageddon, Inquisition so it is formalized and everyone gets a shot.

Chaos Space Marines and Imperial Guard are not battle brothers: The Lost and the Damned are still missing. And so are the Genestealer Cults.

There is more complexity to army selection for those min/max players, it is sufficiently complex that there is no auto-win combo that has emerged yet.

Aside from Tau+Eldar, Tau+Tau and a few more. There are a few auto-win combos compiting. Good luck trying to play with a casual list.

For those who like their fluff, it is a godsend.

NO WAY.
It is a nightmare!! Everywhere you see Tau being battle brothers with Space Marines, Orks and Necrons, Blood Angels and Necrons, Necrons and Grey Knights, Eldar and Dark Eldar, Tau and Eldar... it goes against anything who has been written before. Why should the Kroot be encouraged by the words of a Chaplain?

For GW more models sold = win, win, epic win.

GW does not host tournaments so as they like to say: it is our "problem" to agree to how tournaments or "friendly" games are conducted, they are out of it as far as they are concerned (even though they still write the rules we must abide by but we can change with a roll off of the dice.)

This part I agrre with.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
Great idea, crappy implimentation. Kind of like religion.

oooh edgy

Though, I do agree with the first part of this. I like allies on how people can use less competitive codex's and keep up. But some of the parts of the ally matrix really doesn't make sense.

I too believe allies is a cool idea but poorly executed..
ICs from one army should not be allowed to join units from another army.

They can join an allied unit but can not embark on an allied transport???
Who makes that kind of rules???

 da001 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Has GW screwed up the game with Allies?

No.

Yes

Spoiler:

Some allies were flirted with as mentioned with "Lost and Damned", Armageddon, Inquisition so it is formalized and everyone gets a shot.

Chaos Space Marines and Imperial Guard are not battle brothers: The Lost and the Damned are still missing. And so are the Genestealer Cults.

There is more complexity to army selection for those min/max players, it is sufficiently complex that there is no auto-win combo that has emerged yet.

Aside from Tau+Eldar, Tau+Tau and a few more. There are a few auto-win combos compiting. Good luck trying to play with a casual list.

For those who like their fluff, it is a godsend.

NO WAY.
It is a nightmare!! Everywhere you see Tau being battle brothers with Space Marines, Orks and Necrons, Blood Angels and Necrons, Necrons and Grey Knights, Eldar and Dark Eldar, Tau and Eldar... it goes against anything who has been written before. Why should the Kroot be encouraged by the words of a Chaplain?

For GW more models sold = win, win, epic win.
GW does not host tournaments so as they like to say: it is our "problem" to agree to how tournaments or "friendly" games are conducted, they are out of it as far as they are concerned (even though they still write the rules we must abide by but we can change with a roll off of the dice.)

This part I agrre with.

Ah, you have chosen the cup half empty view.
The mistake people make is thinking 40k is a competitive game for serious play, it boils down to rock-paper-scissors army lists.
A win becomes pretty arbitrary where the army list can be more important than the skill of the general.
The larger combinations of army choice just makes the skill of the player all the less important.

Just sit back and relax, just like in the "real" 40k universe: anything you do really does not matter in the scheme of things...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Remulus wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
Great idea, crappy implimentation. Kind of like religion.

oooh edgy
Though, I do agree with the first part of this. I like allies on how people can use less competitive codex's and keep up. But some of the parts of the ally matrix really doesn't make sense.

I play Black Templar.
Fluff has Sisters of Battle team ups quite a few times.
Not battle brothers: huh?
That team-up of angry knights and even more angry nuns would look epic on the table.
It could only be improved with space pirates, ninjas and large sharks with lasers.

Would love to be a fly on the wall when they made the allies matrix, I suspect it was largely figured out in Bugman's bar.

 Talizvar wrote:

The mistake people make is thinking 40k is a competitive game for serious play, it boils down to rock-paper-scissors army lists.

Translation: GW is incapable of making anything other than a small number of lists in an even smaller numbre of armies.
It's not designed for competitive play - it's designed, by GW's own admittance, to help sell models.

Really, the best way to go is to not bother with GW's ruleset.

Matt Ward wrote it, enough said.

 scarletsquig wrote:
Matt Ward wrote it, enough said.

+1

I like the idea of allies,

But I think the Ally char needs to be altered in some ways. to better reflect certain things. (( IG being battle brothers with Tau, to represent Gue'vasa for example ))

I like allies a lot. All of the battle brothers are cool, but that is where the awesome stops. Some allies of convenience are just wrong IMO. Necrons and Grey knights, why? Marines being any level of allies with anything but imperium, eldar and Tau. Even desperate allies, orks and SW just doesn't sit well in my book.

Thinks like Chaos daemons and Chaos space marines opens up a lot for fluffy fun lists, as does IG and marines. Tau/Eldar opens up your opponents 5th gate to hell as he pulls you into the ever expanding abyss known as his hatred.

I only see allies for 2 reasons though. WAAC, and fluff. I never see allies in random pick up games. Either my opponent explains this fun army, or my opponent says it is tournament practice.

Originally, I was very anti allies, mostly because it rode all over the fluff. However in my gaming group we always try to have fluffy matchups so have never come across any of the dumber pairings. Plus, since Codex Inquisition dropped, my Sisters are massive fans

 troa wrote:

To answer your threat title question, no. Everyone has access, so it is not a selective "this faction now autowins" thing.

Uh, Tyranids can ally now?

 gossipmeng wrote:
I like when allies are used for fluffy purposes. I don't like when allies are used purely to win games.

Precisely how I feel. I love nothing more than a fluffy army, but people who use these rules to gain access to things that are likely intentionally not available for a mono-army is silly.

I simply can't bring myself to Ally because it makes no sense for Orks to ally with anyone except more Orks.

 Sparkadia wrote:


I simply can't bring myself to Ally because it makes no sense for Orks to ally with anyone except more Orks.

Well.... if you tilt your head and squint a bit, you could maybe see Blood Axe Orks being hired as mercenaries to augment a sad sack PDF army (represented by IG on the table)... that would be one explanation of Orks allying with something other than Orks. Of course, that's pretty much the only one I can think of.

Allies could of been done better.

Would of preferred the majority to be allies of convenience to stop shenanigans, and a few out right CtA such as necrons.

Though it absolutely makes me want to spew when I see Necron+GK armies or Tau+Space Marines (I don't care how diplomatic the Ultramarines are they should not be Battle Brothers) I think that the ability to field my Guard with my Marines and vice versa has been really fun, fluffy and interesting to do.

I honestly don't have much of a problem with allies. Sure, GW screwed up the execution with the nonsensical allies chart, and I agree with other posters in this thread that the chart ought be dumped and all factions treated as allies of convenience, which would simultaneously rid most of the abuses and eliminate the ally chart losers such as the Tyranids. That being said, this game has far, far worse problems then allies. A lot of the really nasty and abusive armies out there, such as jetseer councils, screamerstar, FMC spam, waveserpent spam, necron airforce, triple heldrake, etc. don't require allies at all, and by far the worst armies I have played against or even seen on the tabletop were monobuild. I myself have tried to create some interesting ally combos, but having to add in a HQ plus and troop in addition to what you want to buy (such as a Vendetta) tends to get in the way of making an effective list.

Not to mention allies currently does serve as a patch of sorts for the awful external balance of this game. Some armies such as Orkz can't tackle heavy armor effectively, while others, such as Space Wolves, can't do much of anything against aircraft. This isn't a defining weakness of the armies, because there is nothing a player of one of these armies can do about these weaknesses other than not play against heavy armor spam or flyer/FMC spam armies. They either pack up, or they include allies/formations/fortifications so they can actually hurt the opponents units. It is an awfully rubbish way to fix the problem, but until GW learns how to write balanced codices, it is the only way to deal with the problem.

As far as butchering fluff is concerned, fluff has been butchered since I started playing 40k (which is 6 years ago). I remember when ever Tyranid army was nothing by MCs with a few genestealers thrown in the satisfy the force org requirements. Chaos players constantly mixed opposing gods. Every IG army consisted of veterans in chimera. Some Ork boyz thrown in with Necrons isn't going to change that.

 Sparkadia wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
I like when allies are used for fluffy purposes. I don't like when allies are used purely to win games.

Precisely how I feel. I love nothing more than a fluffy army, but people who use these rules to gain access to things that are likely intentionally not available for a mono-army is silly.

I simply can't bring myself to Ally because it makes no sense for Orks to ally with anyone except more Orks.

Forgeworld allows this, that's how I use allies right now.

squidhills wrote:

 Sparkadia wrote:


I simply can't bring myself to Ally because it makes no sense for Orks to ally with anyone except more Orks.

Well.... if you tilt your head and squint a bit, you could maybe see Blood Axe Orks being hired as mercenaries to augment a sad sack PDF army (represented by IG on the table)... that would be one explanation of Orks allying with something other than Orks. Of course, that's pretty much the only one I can think of.

It would need to be dire circumstances but yes, I suppose it is possible, though the general urge for bloodshed would be too much for Orks to remain in control I think.

My mate was playing Dark Heresy once and had a temporary alliance with an Ork Freebooter Warboss, because they offered him a larger hat. This seems like one of the few plausible scenarios I can imagine an Ork really wanting to ally.