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.

I find the rationale behind allies puzzling. When I look at the allies table, there are a fair number of marine chapters who aren't battle brothers which makes it strange that different xenos races can be. What if all battle brother rated allies were downgraded to allies of convenience and more controverially, make allied units non scoring? Just a wild thought. Be gentle

I'd also propose that data slates take up a FOC slot.

Personally, I wouldn't shed a tear if allies vanished entirely.

I'd be totally fine is BB stopped existing altogether.

Either way, like much of GW; good idea, poor execution.

I like the idea of allies and being able to mitigate some of your weaknesses or obtain other capabilities ... but at a trade off. Currently, there is no trade off.

Personally I like Allies, though I hardly ever use them. The matrix was a nice, but failed concept. My group is just thinking about making everyone “Allies of Conveyance” unless they are from the same Codex like Space Marines. That sort of takes care of everything; we may even let the Nids have some friends.

 Ifurita wrote:
I like the idea of allies and being able to mitigate some of your weaknesses or obtain other capabilities ... but at a trade off. Currently, there is no trade off.

I'm not opposed to the concept, obviously with a suitable trade off, but I'm also of the opinion that codices should have certain weaknesses and strengths. It would help if GW could create codices with a semblance of internal balance and external balance.

*Edit* I also dislike the whole concept of self-allying in its current form. Its basically additional FO slots that only some codices can achieve.

From a fluff prospective I love the idea of allies.

However form a play prospective I feel the ally chart is a good addition but need some tweaking.

Battle brothers should definitely go away, there's no way to keep it and have balance on the allies table. Especially if they take fluff into account, which it seems like they do fairly heavily.

I think allies should be kept BUT...

They should certainly be changed slightly like Tau shouldn't be able to battle brother with space marine since the tau are xenos, at the very most they should only be allies of convenience, and Dark eldar battle brother with eldar? come on, in the fluff eldar commit genocide because of the dark eldar...

But it could be fun if the FOC changed around a bit

I don't use allies.

Data slates I don't mind. In terms of allies, the answer is much more convoluted.

Now then, I see two things to this whole argument. On one hand, the fluffy point, the other, the play point. To begin with, allies brings even more possibilities for cheese, the capability of shoring up big holes in an army, and all around irritating shenanagins that often make the good codices better and then bad codices even more unappealing. Now then, but what of fluff? This is where it gets more complicated. For a fluffy viewpoint, the idea is kind of cool. Unite your armies in fluffy ways and have fun with your models! SM fighting alongside guardsman, CSM fighting alongside chaos daemons, etc. Its cool, thematic, and interesting. However, BB should really only work like CSM and Daemons for the most part. Simply put, they can't combine units for the most part. Exceptions should exist. Tau generals being able to join guardsman, CSM able to join a unit of guardsman, Inquisitors being allowed to be in a unit of practically any Imperial faction out there... But SM within a unit of guardsman? No sir indeedy. SM and IG don't really work entirely in tandem. SM aren't going to have their commander go off to join the guardsman whilst his marines march onwards by themself. Also no more hey going to give these guys and they shall know no fear and 4++ saves . Anyways, not even all of the relationships make sense. SM and Tau, SoB and SM, CSM/CD with IG, and a few others just make zero sense. Its also further disqueiting that Nids don't even get to ally with themself.

In short, an interesting idea I can't quite say whether I like in the book or not that failed terribly in execution.

Removing the excessive number of ally combinations and removing Battle Brothers (or severly limiting the combinations eligible) would really help out. I'm curious if the rumored "7th ed" will shake up the ally chart. The fact that Tau can ally nearly every army and Tyranids cannot at all is just ridiculous, causing an inherent imbalance in the core book. The only hope I see for 'nids in this arena would be a supplement.

If you're curious, I do use allies. CSM and CD in either combination. I'd like to have a traitor guard ally for these armies at some point. It's even funnier since CSM and CD are battle brothers, the restrictions specific to Daemons limits Battle Brothers somewhat (ICs joining squads for example), if playing CD/CSM the warpstorm table can affect your ally, and if playing CSM/CD warpstorm isn't in effect.

I don't think making allies non-scoring would be an improvement necessarily, just inflicting a force org tax on certain armies deeper than others. For example, if i were CSM allied with CD, I'd have to spend a minimum of 90 points on non-scoring troops (10 basic plaguebearers, pink horrors or daemonettes). In reverse, CD allied with CSM, I would have to spend a minimum of 50 points (10 basic cultists). It doesn't sound like too much, but the armies with the cheapest troops would be the easiest to ally. In my example, I'd lose ten wounds I could hunker down onto a back field objective.

The ally FOC should be used to fill gaps and add a potential balancing factor to different armies. What I've seen so far is that it is seems to widen that rift due to the implementation.

That's an interesting idea, an ally-specific FOC: HQ, 2 x Troops, 1 x Elite, 1 x Heavy, no Lords of War.

With the fluff rationale being that a Tau ally contingent wouldn't really consist of an IC + 3 riptides + min troops

If you're into designing your own chapter or some weird army variant with lots of count-as, allies are a Godsend. However, Battle Brothers need to go, at least while the super generous rules concerning characters giving special rules to units they join, which causes most of the abuses (or at least the worst abuses). Allies or convenience are ok and I wouldn't even limit them, if it allowed people to custom make their own genestealer cult or whatever other weird piece of fluff.

I think battle brothers should go for all armies that do not share the same parent codex.

ie Tau/Farsight. They can be battle brothers.

Eldar/Iyanden sure they can be battle brothers

SM/Iron hands can be battle brothers

etc

Orks/IG not battle brothers

Eldar/ Dark eldar not battle brothers

etc.

My personal fix is simple. DO NOT ALLOW the extra chart. Have allies take up existing FOC slots not add. So now when you ally Black legion, and World Eaters it is for fluff reasons not for extra heavy support. This also solves the Tyranid problem of only ever getting one FOC chart (below 2000pts that is). The stop the Battle Brothers joining the the other armies units, to stop OP combos, and you should have a fixed idea.

I like that idea too

 Ifurita wrote:
I like that idea too

I came up with it right after codex Black legion came out and the net went ablaze with the now we get 4 Heldrakes chatter.

Allies - Mostly positive. However, "Battle brothers" should be limited to Imperial armies and Chaos-Guard-Daemons. Xenos should be allies of convenience or worse with the Imperium, Chaos and each other.

Dataslates - Fine so far. Never met a player who uses them, though.

Orkhead wrote:My personal fix is simple. DO NOT ALLOW the extra chart. Have allies take up existing FOC slots not add. So now when you ally Black legion, and World Eaters it is for fluff reasons not for extra heavy support. This also solves the Tyranid problem of only ever getting one FOC chart (below 2000pts that is). The stop the Battle Brothers joining the the other armies units, to stop OP combos, and you should have a fixed idea.

Adds an extra layer of resource management. i wouldn't be opposed to that.

Orkhead wrote:

 Ifurita wrote:
I like that idea too

I came up with it right after codex Black legion came out and the net went ablaze with the now we get 4 Heldrakes chatter.

No 2k 8 heldrake lists yet? It can be done I believe...

Agent_Tremolo wrote:Dataslates - Fine so far. Never met a player who uses them, though.

Not all are created equal. Some add complexity to the FOC and some just add units. Example: Be'lakor is a new HQ choice and occupies a slot in either CSM or CD. This is close to what was suggested for allies by Orkhead.

I think that what I am hearing is:

1. Battle brothers was poorly thought out and with some exceptions, should be changed to allies of convenience.
2. Management of your FOC is a key component to list building and data slates/allies should be allowed within the constraints of the FOC and not as ways to break the constraints of the FOC.

That being said, I like what they did in HH and offer alternative FOCs with various trade offs.

 Ifurita wrote:
I think that what I am hearing is:

1. Battle brothers was poorly thought out and with some exceptions, should be changed to allies of convenience.
2. Management of your FOC is a key component to list building and data slates/allies should be allowed within the constraints of the FOC and not as ways to break the constraints of the FOC.

That being said, I like what they did in HH and offer alternative FOCs with various trade offs.

I have not yet looked at any of the post 4thed Forge world books. can you give examples?

I like the notion of allies being able to inject vitality into older armies by taking newer allied forces.

I do not like the very weird way it was constructed and would just suggest the following.

1. removed the stages of ally, just have the ally of convenience level of alliance. Mistrusted and Bros is annoying.

2. the choices open to some armies are just plain weird, revise them.

3. give the poor nids a boost, like a universal points increase or something.

I believe the HH books had either 3 of 4 alternative FOCs. One example would be the rapid strike force (and I'm making this up) would have an extra Fast Attack slot, but lose a Heavy Slot and the ability to take any Lords of War. The would also get some bonuses for outflanking etc. I'll give you a more specific example when I can get to my books.

MGS, I agree that one flavor of allies would be simpler to manage. Some of the ally choices are strange to me too, like Necrons being able to ally with anyone.

IMO allies and data slates have great intent, but due to loose restrictions, allows for immense abuse.

With Tau, there's almost no FOC restrictions.

Ally as BB with Farsight Enclaves and make all of your Crisis Suits Troops and free up those Elite slots for Riptides. Then take some perks from Farsight Enclaves, such as ECP and Talisman, to supplement regular Tau.

Using a Riptide and 6x Broadsides already? Why not make them a Firebase Support Cadre? Now they have Tankhunters and Preferred Enemy Space Marines. You also just freed up another Elite slot and two Heavy slots (hello more Skyrays). Granted, it's a ton of points.

Nothing against Tau, just an example of how to use it to boost your army. Hell, I love making my Crisis Suits Troops for scoring.

Quick Question
>What is the difrence between a APOC Data Sheet and a Data Slate?
Have not got one yet.

An Apocalypse data sheet is just that, it's a unit or formation that can only be used in Apocalypse games.

A data slate is an e-book only supplement that provides variants of units that you can use in your army. The data slates vary:

Firebase Support Cadre (Tau) - allow you to take a riptide + 6 broadsides as a single unit with special rules that doesn't take up a FOC slot

Hive Fleet Leviathan (Tyranids) - provides you with options for 5 additional units featuring genestealers, lictors, gargoyles, and deathleater.

Data slates can be used in any game.

Love allies. Love dataslates. So many possibilities.

Orkhead wrote:

I have not yet looked at any of the post 4thed Forge world books. can you give examples?

All the legions talked about in the first 2 books have an additional "Rite of War" they can use (two of them now, for the guys in the first book as they gained an additional alternate to use in book 2). You can only access it if you bring a unit with "Master of the Legion" which is basically a Primarch or Praetor. Some of the other named characters can access them, too, like Kharn for the World Eaters and Abaddon for Sons of Horus.

They offer bonuses, but also some setbacks. An example is Sons of Horus' rite of war "The Black Reaving". You gain bonuses of all reserves entering not by way of Deep Strike gain fleet the turn they arrive, your units gain Rage when they assault a unit already locked in combat, you can take Reaver Squads (a Sons of Horus exclusive unit) as troops, and Justaerin Terminators (another Sons of Horus special unit) gain Deep Strike. It also limits your army by forcing you to take a Master of Signal as a compulsory HQ choice (which in all likelyhood means your two HQ slots are set for sub-2000 point games default using this rite), you have to include more Fast Attack than heavy Support choices, you must take an additional compulsory troops choice as per FOC, and you can't take fortifications.

It's pretty clever and adds a lot to gameplay, from what I understand of guys I know who play 30k.

As for the topic on hand, I'm of the mind allies is a good concept but the execution obliterates the competitive scene. Not that I care about that, mind you, but I do understand the people who do being as upset as they are. From a collector's standpoint, it's great because you can collect 2 armies and actually get to play both of them, together. The issue is the allies chart represents the literal best example of those armies working together, but outside of the imperial armies being BB and Eldar/Dark Eldar, the allies matrix is far more lenient of allying than the game universe. It also messes with the Force Org, and generally I'm not a fan of that because it makes allies tactically superior whenever you can do it.

That's kind of my issue with Dataslates. I'm totally okay with Belakor and Cypher - or would be if they actually took up an HQ slot. I don't even think I'd mind a lot of the formations, if they didn't ignore force org and also took extra points to utilize the formation's rules like they would in an Apoc game. Gaining special rules for free and ignoring force org is GW saying "we literally do not care that a large portion of our players play this to be competitive rather than for the hobby modeling side of our product."

I think that making allies "allies of convenience" and making them and data slates take up a FOC slot addresses all of your points.

 Ifurita wrote:
and more controverially, make allied units non scoring?

I strongly disagree with this. The last thing I want to see is even more incentive to take minimum-troops allies for the sole purpose of unlocking whatever overpowered unit you want to add to your army. At least with scoring allies you have a reason to take meaningful troops choices and make it a legitimate allied force instead of just taking a Riptide and the irrelevant point sinks you have to buy to get it.

 Ifurita wrote:
That's an interesting idea, an ally-specific FOC: HQ, 2 x Troops, 1 x Elite, 1 x Heavy, no Lords of War.

With the fluff rationale being that a Tau ally contingent wouldn't really consist of an IC + 3 riptides + min troops

I think you're a bit confused here. Tau allies can't take 3x Riptides because you only have one elites slot in the allied FOC. And your proposed new FOC is just weird: you're missing fast attack, lords of war are already not part of allied detachments, and it doesn't make much sense to require mandatory non-troops units. The whole idea of the FOC is supposed to be that troops are the core of your army, and all the other stuff is the options you add on to that core. Requiring a heavy support choice for an allied force that wouldn't be mandatory in a primary detachment is just weird.

 SRSFACE wrote:
Gaining special rules for free and ignoring force org is GW saying "we literally do not care that a large portion of our players play this to be competitive rather than for the hobby modeling side of our product."

In theory the way GW did it could work just fine. Formations could reward you for taking "fluffy" combinations of units that you might not otherwise be interested in, and the balance would be provided by the prerequisite units that would force you to ask yourself whether the bonuses are worth taking something other than the ideal "spam the most overpowered stuff" list. The problem with the Tau formation is that it completely lacks that balance, the units it requires are the overpowered ones that you're already taking so you're just getting extra bonuses for free. If it required a couple full-size units of Vespids to "guard the Riptide and act as a counter-assault force" you'd see a lot less interest in it.